Albert Von Schweikert's response to John Dunlavy - Part I
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
> your interesting but incorrect assertions.
>
> However, I'm somewhat amused that you have taken up with Steve Zipser who
> sells stereo equipment out of his house.
Hmmmm, oh, Albert, yoohoo, Albert, your buddy, Rich Brkich sells VR's
out of his house, Albert. He's right in Watertown NY, where the factory
is located. Hifi Farm sells out of a farm house. You have other
dealers that operate out of houses. There is nothing wrong with that,
and YOU KNOW IT!
I invested a quarter of a million dollars in mu location which is right
on Biscayne Blvd. That is US-1, which is the longest business street in
the world! It runs from Bangor, Maine to Key West, Florida, and runs
through many major cities. Smhame on you Mr. von Schweikert on this
transparently specious attack on my business. I have invested far more
in my location than your current dealer, Audio by Caruso (remember - the
Audio Dealer from Hell by Joe Pasko?). CARUSO AND SUNSHINE ARE BOTH ON
US-1. That is the same street. Sunshine's facilities are superb, and
they resemble the conditions within which most customers listen to their
speakers. As a matter of fact, Mark Bresnay, who works for Caruso,
stated that the Von Schweikert VR-3's sounded much better at Sunshine
Stereo than they did at Audio by Caruso. We sold more VR's in south
Florida in our first three months than BOTH your other dealers did in
the same period - and we kept our margins up!
There have been many postings about how great our facilities are. You
wouldn't know, because you failed to appear as promised, von schweikert.
>Last year I remember that he made > a post claiming that "100% of
> your speakers were failing in the field due to tweeter damage."
John:
I'm am sorry that Albert von Schweikert has sunk to new lows in
denegrating you in any way he knows how, and has taken statements out of
context.
The speakers that failed were Duntechs, sold by Sound Advice, a mass
market chain in South Florida. Those were not Dunlavy products as von
schwekert tries to intimate. He knows better.
Regards
Steve Zipser
ae...@flight.els
Great Stuff!!!! I can't wait for the next article in the series!!!!!
John J. Nunes
In message <340f2c4d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> - ae...@flight.els
writes:
:>
:>Great Stuff!!!! I can't wait for the next article in the series!!!!!
Both posts (Dunlavy and VS) were also just rehashed stuff that anyone
who knows about speaker design and the history of it knows.
Both of them also know that it's about sets of tradoffs, which will be
interesting if either of them pursue that angle. They should, but that
doesn't mean they will. If so, then one will know where they really
stand vis a vis each other.
- John Nunes
DavidKersh
In article <340EDB...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>This is a lie, Mr. von Schweikert. I like the speakers.
>I do not like the people running the company.
Zip-
Glad to hear you like the speakers, stop knocking them... BTW, I like
Sunshine Stereo, just not the person running it.
David Kersh
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Kersh:
Our lawyer has all three of our MIAMI SHORES licenses, all issued before
we were VR dealers. I'm outta this one, Kersh you are wrong, legally,
morally, and truthfully :)
See you in court.
Zip
AlbertVon
John, thanks for the input. You're right about Zwicker's name, I wrote
that post late at night and can't believe I misspelled it. People are
always misspelling mine as well, can't blame them! About my comments
regarding spherical wavefronts, I needed to choose readily identifiable
concepts for those of us who are not familiar with the complexity of real
waveforms. As you realize, many researchers have indicated that it would
take several hundred mics and channels to really describe an acoustic
event. I couldn't agree with you more!
However, since my designs and Mr. Dunlavy's are very different from each
other, choosing simple concepts to describe their advantages and
disadvantages seemed great at 3:00am! By the way, true omnidirectional
speakers such as the MBL Radialstrahler have been highly regarded in the
imaging department. Read Michael Gindi's review in the absolute sound a
couple of years ago, and John Atkinson's recent review in Stereophile a few
months ago. Many audiophiles seem to change their bias against designs of
this type after they hear them, and I believe it's because your subconcious
mind suddenly remembers that this is how real music does sound! Live music
never has pinpoint imaging, have you been to a concert hall recently? J.
Gordon Holt used to talk about this all the time. I and several thousand
customers of the VR-4 design believe that it's imaging pattern is far more
believable than that of beam radiators which don't allow you to move your
head. Thanks for your kind words, and I look forward to discussing these
topics again. Best regards, Albert Von Schweikert
Albert Von Schweikert
Stewart Pinkerton
ppe...@mindspring.com (Pete) writes:
>Hi,
>Oh boy, Lets get reaaaaaaaaadt to ruuuuuuuumble!
>In the near corner, the crafty veteran and long time speaker designer,
>John "The MasterBlaster" DunLavy" and in the far corner, the
>challenger, Albert "The Kid" VS. The early odds are in at 5 to 1 in
>favor of John Dunlavy. All kidding aside, I look forward to a
>interesting discussion between these heavyweight contenders with very
>different approaches. Resorting to obscure technobabble (and not
>established audio engineering slang) and or appeals to commercialism
>will be considered the moral equivalent of ear biting:)
>
Ain't it grand? A wonderful pile of invective, technobabble and
appeals to magazine reviews, vs a cool discussion of acoustic
principles from DAL. Can't wait for JDs response!
I actually prefer 4th order filters myself to lighten the load on the
drivers, but Albert does the cause no favours. Interesting that he
doesn't even bother to check the anechoic response of his speakers.
I'm dying to see his Acoustic Inverse Replication theory exposed for
the sham it is by the fundamentals of his use of pistonic drivers with
consequently narrowing directivity, versus JDs use of flexible cones
with constant directivity and hence *less* of Alberts 'flashlight'
effect. And what the heck is Global Axis Integration? He sounds more
like George Cardas every day.....................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
A S P Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
DavidKersh
In article <340F57...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
<z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>Our lawyer has all three of our MIAMI SHORES licenses, all issued before
>we were VR dealers. I'm outta this one, Kersh you are wrong, legally,
>morally, and truthfully :)
Gee you're calling me a liar ? Then why do I have a letter from the City
of Miami Shores that says three things:
1- Sunshine Stereo has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
2- Steve Zipser has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
3- The address of your business is not licensed by the City of Miami Shores
According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way you
are legally conducting business.
Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a public
apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
David Kersh
Arny Krüger
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<341027c1...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
> ppe...@mindspring.com (Pete) writes:
>
> I'm dying to see his Acoustic Inverse Replication theory exposed for
> the sham it is by the fundamentals of his use of pistonic drivers with
> consequently narrowing directivity, versus JDs use of flexible cones
> with constant directivity and hence *less* of Alberts 'flashlight'
> effect. And what the heck is Global Axis Integration? He sounds more
> like George Cardas every day.....................
>
The recent posting by VS seem far more lucid than the tripe on his web
site. One of those rare cases where postings on RAO actually shed more
light on the topic!
W0lph
In article <19970905170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
david...@aol.com (DavidKersh) wrote:
It is your claim he is not licensed.. Its YOUR duty to prove sufficient
reason for such a statement.
Lon Stowell
DavidKersh <david...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
>these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a public
>apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
Instead of proving that you are an unmitigated moron on newsnet,
if you REALLY think that Sunshine Stereo is conducting business
illegally, why not simply report this to the city attorney
in question. Or is this simply too sensible for you?
Now put your willy back in your pants and stop waving it around
in public.
Arny Krüger
W0lph <W0...@emi.net> wrote in article
<W0lph-05099...@192.168.1.10>...
> >
> > Gee you're calling me a liar ? Then why do I have a letter from the
City
> > of Miami Shores that says three things:
> >
> > 1- Sunshine Stereo has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> >
> > 2- Steve Zipser has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> >
> > 3- The address of your business is not licensed by the City of Miami
Shores
> >
> > According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way
you
> > are legally conducting business.
> >
> > Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> > these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a
public
> > apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
> >
>
> It is your claim he is not licensed.. Its YOUR duty to prove sufficient
> reason for such a statement.
>
I think he has. Now there might be a question about the validity of the
letter, but we are not going to settle that on a NG.
Arny Krüger
Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote in article
<5upmkj$g...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
> DavidKersh <david...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> >these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a
public
> >apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
>
> Instead of proving that you are an unmitigated moron on newsnet,
> if you REALLY think that Sunshine Stereo is conducting business
> illegally, why not simply report this to the city attorney
> in question.
Perhaps he has, and the city attorney either has taken action or has more
important things to do.
Arny Krüger
DavidKersh <david...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970905170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>
> Gee you're calling me a liar ? Then why do I have a letter from the City
> of Miami Shores that says three things:
>
> 1- Sunshine Stereo has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
>
> 2- Steve Zipser has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
>
> 3- The address of your business is not licensed by the City of Miami
Shores
>
> According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way you
> are legally conducting business.
>
> Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a public
> apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
>
IMO, you are not asking for the world when you are doing this, either. It
has happened before on RAO over far more trivial matters than this.
W0lph
In article <01bcba36$5a913f80$3072...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
> W0lph <W0...@emi.net> wrote in article
> <W0lph-05099...@192.168.1.10>...
> > >
> > > Gee you're calling me a liar ? Then why do I have a letter from the
> City
> > > of Miami Shores that says three things:
> > >
> > > 1- Sunshine Stereo has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> > >
> > > 2- Steve Zipser has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> > >
> > > 3- The address of your business is not licensed by the City of Miami
> Shores
> > >
> > > According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way
> you
> > > are legally conducting business.
> > >
> > > Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> > > these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a
> public
> > > apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
> > >
> >
> > It is your claim he is not licensed.. Its YOUR duty to prove sufficient
> > reason for such a statement.
> >
>
> I think he has. Now there might be a question about the validity of the
> letter, but we are not going to settle that on a NG.
Perhaps. But he only CLAIMS to have the letter. Well, I have here a letter
by the President of the United States saying that his letter doesn't exist..
AWRigby
Here is John's reply to Albert Von Schweikert's post:
I find Mr. Von Schweikert’s response to me of 4 Sept. 1997 (posted here by
Jim Wald) most interesting!
Frankly, after reading it I was reminded of a wonderful cartoon by
Rodrigues that appeared in Audio Magazine sometime during the 1970’s or
80’s (which hangs in a frame on the wall behind my desk). The cartoon
depicts St. Peter at the Golden Gate asking a very humble and contrite
looking soul (an ex speaker designer): "So you’re Joseph Paul Carruthers
and you were president of Audivex speakers. You made many claims for your
speakers. Tell me Joseph, what is ‘flux impulse driver’? And ‘no-lag
midrange crossover’? What about ‘vectored ubiquitous maxi-woofer’, what is
that Joseph?". Hmmm!
Many of the explanations provided by Mr. Von Schweikert to explain how his
(and other designer’s) loudspeakers work and perform do not use words,
terms and expressions universally used and understood by competent
engineers and physicists. As a consequence, Albert might wish to polish his
grasp of the fundamentals associated with network theory, array theory,
radiation patterns, wave propagation phenomena, radiation properties of
common types of musical instruments, etc.
It is common practice among competent engineers and physicists to explain
the properties and operation of devices (such as loudspeakers, crossover
networks, etc.) by using universally understood and accepted words, terms
and expressions - thereby minimizing any possible misunderstanding of what
meanings are intended during discussions. To meet this need, there is no
shortage of words, terms, expressions, etc. within the present vocabulary
used by members of the engineering and scientific communities.
Indeed, the properties of sound, radiation, arrays of radiating elements,
wave propagation, musical instruments, etc. are well-known and have been
exhaustively treated within various textbooks, technical papers, treatises,
etc.. Likewise, papers on the subject of loudspeakers, radiation, etc. are
regularly published within scholarly, peer-reviewed journals such as the
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, the Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, the I.E.E.E. (transactions on Audio), etc. by
well-understood theory. Being a regular reader of these journals, I do not
ever recall encountering the language, expressions and explanations
presently being used and promoted by Mr. Von Schweikert.
Further, those who might be tempted to believe that everything known about
loudspeaker theory and design can be traced to efforts made during the past
decade or two should peruse the book LOUDSPEAKERS, by N.W. Mc Lachlan,
D.Sc., published in 1924 by Oxford at the Clarendon Press. (Reading this
book can be a humbling experience - for there has been precious little
added to basic theory since that time!)
It appeals to me that there is no reason (other than questionable
marketing motives) for a loudspeaker designer to "invent" such amorphous
terms as "Global Axis Integration Network" (GAIN), Acoustic Inverse
Replication Theory (AIR), etc. As Albert defines them and applies them to
loudspeaker design, they neither make sense (technically) nor do they
accurately convey what actually occurs with respect to the manner in which
sound waves are radiated, propagated through the air, reflected from room
boundaries, etc.
And the many pseudo-scientific terms and flooby-dust explanations used by
Albert to describe the supposed attributes of his loudspeaker designs are
hardly worthy on one wanting to be known as an engineer or competent designer.
Assertions that a piano radiates an "omni-directional" or a "spherical"
soundwave is absolute nonsense. The sound radiated by a piano over the
audio spectrum, be it an upright, grand or a baby grand, is hardly
omni-directional or spherical. For example, for notes whose fundamental
frequencies are above about 1 kHz, the radiation patterns of a grand piano
(with the "lid" open), are quite complex. This is especially true for some
of the harmonics (overtones) of the fundamentals. For notes with
fundamentals below about 200 Hz, the patterns are broader - although the
patterns exhibited at higher harmonics remain complex and multi-lobed.
These properties may partially explain why it is so difficult to obtain an
accurate recording of a piano. Much the same may be said about the
radiation properties of many other musical instruments. Very few exhibit
omni-directional or spherical radiation patterns, etc.
The term Inverse Replication, I believe, is used by Albert to express the
belief that his loudspeakers are capable of "replicating", in an inverse
manner, the properties of a recording microphone - with respect to its
directivity, frequency response and phase response. Nonsense! The better
recording mics (like the ones we regularly use to record our local Colorado
Springs Symphony (during the past two seasons) exhibit a nearly perfect
omni-directional pickup pattern and are flat within plus/minus 0.2 dB from
about 5 Hz to well-above 25 kHz.
A loudspeaker capable of truly emulating such a radiation pattern and
amplitude/phase response Vs frequency would have to simulate a "pulsating
sphere" - hardly anything like Albert’s loudspeakers (or anyone else’s). Hmmm!
And then, there is the problem one encounters with Albert’s claim that his
loudspeakers, with 24 dB/octave crossovers, exhibit "phase-coherent"
performance properties (with excellent impulse and step responses). Not so!
Unless Albert has found a means for defying the laws of physics and the
teachings of engineering, it is, simply put, not possible. Although a
properly-designed 4th-order (24 dB/octave) crossover network provides
"in-phase addition" of the high-pass and low-pass signals, at the crossover
frequency, they are actually 360 degrees out-of-phase (one full cycle).
The only exception to this is an "active digital type of crossover
network", where the phase component is not preserved in the
"digital-domain". The use of a 24 dB/octave, 4th-order crossover network
(with time-aligned drivers) yields a loudspeaker with impulse and step
responses that are not minimum-phase and which have very distorted
waveshapes - contrary to what Albert says and advertises. (We have accurate
MLSSA measurements to prove it!)
Albert also drops the names of many well-known designers and engineers he
claims to have worked with and learned from in the past - such as Dick
Heyser. I knew Dick very well before he died and cannot imagine him ever
condoning the technical gobbledygook being exploited by Albert. Dick, by
the way, reviewed my first commercially-marketed loudspeaker, the Duntech
Labs DL-15, in the August, 1976 issue of Audio Magazine - as the most
accurate reproducer of a piano he had ever heard (his most demanding test).
Subsequent reviews of DAL loudspeakers in several respected audiophile mags
throught the world confirm our claims for accuracy. (See the reviews of
DAL’s SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers in various issues of Stereophile
and compare their independent measurements with those we publish.)
Last, but not least, DAL publishes a full set of anechoic chamber
measurements, with guaranteed accuracy, for every loudspeaker model the
company manufactures. And every loudspeaker is individually measured (and
stored in files for future reference) in one of our two large anechoic
chambers, accompanied by an array of the best and most accurate measurement
equipment available. Any purchaser of our loudspeakers can obtain copies of
these measurements, free of charge, by merely requesting them. (I wonder if
many other manufacturers make such an offer? Does Albert? Hmmm!)
I have written the above, not to belittle Albert, his designs or his
loudspeakers. There is plenty of room in the marketplace to accommodate the
tastes of a wide variety of purchasers. And I believe there is a "place"
for loudspeakers that exhibit a "lush, sweet, nice, pretty, engaging, etc."
sound character. But such qualities should not be referred to as accurate.
I also believe that there are two kinds of accuracy: subjective and
objective. Subjective accuracy is relative to the individual "preferences
and tastes" of the listener. Objective accuracy, by contrast, must be
verifiable by a combination of a complete set of accurate and meaningful
measurements, coupled with listening comparisons (in real-time) with live
music - as we do during the season with our local symphony and occasional
comparisons with a string quartet, piano, etc., here at our plant. In the
end, I sincerely believe that most serious music lovers will wish to listen
to and purchase loudspeakers and other system components that provide the
highest level of objectively verifiable accuracy. For their wish will be
to replicate the "original live experience" in their own listening
environment - without the acoustics of that environment being superimposed
on the accoustics of the environment within which the recording was made!
Yes, Albert, we take "true accuracy" very seriously.
Lets all work together to make performance specs and advertising claims
more honest, complete and meanigful. If we do not, I fear we will lose the
long-term confidence and respect of the audiophile community.
Best of listening!
John Dunlavy
Jack W. Hart
Jay B. Haider wrote:
> On 4 Sep 1997 10:12:04 GMT, "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for taking the time to promote this interesting discussion of
> >loudspeaker design. What has started out as a ridiculous attack on
> our
> >product line by Steve Zipser and others, has now turned into a
> scientific
> >discussion of contemporary speaker design. I've just returned from
> >vacation to find that this news group has been waiting for my answers
> to
> >your interesting but incorrect assertions.
>
> <snip>
>
> Mr. Von Schweikert:
>
> This thread could turn out to be very interesting and
> educational. Please do not turn it into another VSR vs. Steve Zipser
> travesty will seriously destroy the atmosphere. I must assume that, if
>
> such attacks continue, that you are trying to deflect the conversation
>
> from the issue of speaker design to the issue of Steve Zipser.
> If you attack Zipser, he will reply, period; likewise, if he
> attacks VSR in this forum at the current time, reply in kind to those
> comments, but don't mix up such attacks with the debate at hand.
Jay:
I'm sorry, but coming from someone else in "the south," are you trying
to give us all a bad name? I hope that you won't be assuming
responsibility for international affairs anytime soon. I've sat back,
in silence, and watched this and other rediculous threads develop; to
accuse Albert, who's ONLY defending himself from Zipser's baseless
accusations, of destroying the "atmosphere" on this newsgroup (should we
all say AMEN?) is utterly proposterous! Using your logic, let Zipser
make whatever accusations he would like and Albert should just swallow
hard and let them go unchallenged. I SINCERELY hope that the U.S.'s
intenational strategy will not take this approach!
Cheers,
Jack
tom brennan
Kersh--- Are you trying to rat Zip out here? You trying to put him in a
jam? I think this forum is for discussing a hobby, and here you go
fucking with a guys living. This is going beyond all the bullshit slung
around the basically trivial concerns of this hobby. You oughta watch
what you say in public, a serious man knows when to dummy up.
Regards Tom Brennan
Johnny Y Boey
So when are you guys going to court. Please post the outcome. It'd be
really interesting.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
DavidKersh wrote:
>
> In article <340F57...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
> <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>
> >Our lawyer has all three of our MIAMI SHORES licenses, all issued before
> >we were VR dealers. I'm outta this one, Kersh you are wrong, legally,
> >morally, and truthfully :)
>
> of Miami Shores that says three things:
>
> 1- Sunshine Stereo has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> 2- Steve Zipser has no business license in the City of Miami Shores
> 3- The address of your business is not licensed by the City of Miami Shores
> According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way you
> are legally conducting business.
> Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a public
> apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
Mr. Kersh:
You have made very specific allegations here. This is most unfortunate
for you. A copy of your post is being sent to my attorney, Markcity &
Rothman.
I appreciate your genuine concern over the legality of Sunshine Stereo,
its too bad you didn't have equal concern over abbrogating signed
agreements.
The licenses will be produced in court, not the net. The net is NOT the
place to conduct this type of business. I would have thought that after
your stupid, unprofessional actions last winter that you would have
learned that by now.
Of course, if you would like to visit our SHOWROOMS, you can see them
openly displayed for all to see.
Thanks again :-)
Zip
Jay B. Haider
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:28:06 -0500, "Jack W. Hart"
<jwh...@premier.net> wrote:
>Jay B. Haider wrote:
>> Mr. Von Schweikert:
>> This thread could turn out to be very interesting and
>> educational. Please do not turn it into another VSR vs. Steve Zipser
>> travesty will seriously destroy the atmosphere. I must assume that, if
>> such attacks continue, that you are trying to deflect the conversation
>> from the issue of speaker design to the issue of Steve Zipser.
>> If you attack Zipser, he will reply, period; likewise, if he
>> attacks VSR in this forum at the current time, reply in kind to those
>> comments, but don't mix up such attacks with the debate at hand.
>
>Jay:
>
>I'm sorry, but coming from someone else in "the south," are you trying
>to give us all a bad name? I hope that you won't be assuming
>responsibility for international affairs anytime soon. I've sat back,
>in silence, and watched this and other rediculous threads develop;
I'm quite sorry if you find this type of dialectic exchange
"rediculous". I personally find it fascinating. Would you prefer more
ABX debates, or a serious exchange between two very successful
loudspeaker designers?
> to
>accuse Albert, who's ONLY defending himself from Zipser's baseless
>accusations, of destroying the "atmosphere" on this newsgroup (should we
>all say AMEN?) is utterly proposterous!
Hmm... let me reprint my own words, OK?
"This thread could turn out to be very interesting and educational."
Please explain how you extrapolated from this decidedly local
comment about this particular thread (I use commonly accepted diction
here: this thread refers ONLY to "Re: Albert Von Schweikert's response
to John Dunlavy - Part I") a global statement about the newsgroup?
> Using your logic, let Zipser
>make whatever accusations he would like and Albert should just swallow
>hard and let them go unchallenged.
Again, let me quote myself:
"If you attack Zipser, he will reply, period; likewise, if he
attacks VSR in this forum at the current time, reply in kind to those
comments, but don't mix up such attacks with the debate at hand."
Where in that sentence do you see a call for Mr Von Schweikert to
"just swallow hard...."? I *do*, however, clearly see a call to
*separate* an interesting debate from such comments.
> I SINCERELY hope that the U.S.'s
>intenational strategy will not take this approach!
I do too. Civility isn't really a concern in politics.
>Cheers,
>Jack
Your fundamental problem, it seems, is that you saw my message
(which was intended as a call for *civility*) as an attack on VSR. So,
of course, to defend your icon from this perceived slight you had to
launch an ad hominem attack on me.... Well, that's fine, but maybe
next time actually read what you're replying to, OK?
NP: 50th Anniversary of the UN concert, World Orchestra for
Peace/Solti.
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2001, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same state of integrity,
It will surely serve us well" -Neil Peart
Arny Krüger
tom brennan <iris...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<5uqhvi$m69$1...@newsd-5.alma.webtv.net>...
> Kersh--- Are you trying to rat Zip out here? You trying to put him in a
> jam? I think this forum is for discussing a hobby, and here you go
> fucking with a guys living.
Looks like both Kersh and Zip are both trying to rat each other out. It
will be interesting to see if Zip can extricate himself from this one. I
predict candor will not be the chosen methodology. ;-(
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<3410C1...@netrunner.net>...
> You have made very specific allegations here. This is most unfortunate
> for you. A copy of your post is being sent to my attorney, Markcity &
> Rothman.
>
> I appreciate your genuine concern over the legality of Sunshine Stereo,
> its too bad you didn't have equal concern over abbrogating signed
> agreements.
>
> The licenses will be produced in court, not the net. The net is NOT the
> place to conduct this type of business. I would have thought that after
> your stupid, unprofessional actions last winter that you would have
> learned that by now.
>
As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls, instead.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Arny Krüger wrote:
> As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls, instead.
Arnie:
You are cordially invited to my shop where the licenses are in plain
view to all who enter.
The only time Kersh will see them is in court.
Even you can understand the reasons for this.
Zip
LILI DAVILA
Sorry, Krooborg... Sorry, Kersh. Liliana Davila and I visited Steve and
Gigi at Sunshine Stereo on August 10 and we can both vouch for the
veracity of Steve's statements - we both saw his licenses in plain view.
For either of you to assert or imply otherwise is just unmitigated
libelous crap. How low are you unprincipled cretins going to stoop
next??? Watch out - Steve has a good lawyer!
Sandman
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<5urbtv$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls,
instead.
>
> Arnie:
> You are cordially invited to my shop where the licenses are in plain
> view to all who enter.
> The only time Kersh will see them is in court.
> Even you can understand the reasons for this.
No I can't, Zip. Why not lay it out in black and white, right here on RAO...
Jim Wald
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
> Jim Sanders wrote:
> > Sorry, Krooborg... Sorry, Kersh. Liliana Davila and I visited Steve
and
> > Gigi at Sunshine Stereo on August 10 and we can both vouch for the
> > veracity of Steve's statements - we both saw his licenses in plain
view.
> > For either of you to assert or imply otherwise is just unmitigated
> > libelous crap. How low are you unprincipled cretins going to stoop
> > next??? Watch out - Steve has a good lawyer!
> >
> > Sandman
>
> Thank you Jim :)
>
> Kersh - print that apology :)
> Zip
>
But Steve, I saw the letter from Miami Shores. You better have your
lawyer straighten up your records with the city, don't you think?
Jim
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Jim Wald wrote:
>
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
> <3411B4...@netrunner.net>...
> But Steve, I saw the letter from Miami Shores. You better have your
> lawyer straighten up your records with the city, don't you think?
>
> Jim
I just notified my lawyer that VSR is now showing materials fronm this
case to private individuals. What official capacity do you have with
VSR, Jim? Kersh made a statement, that was totally refuted - by someone
who bothered to visit our store - which NOBODY from VSR ever bothered to
do. Why are you sticking your two cents in?
Where is Kersh's apology that he promised?
This is my last reply to you, Waldo - you are not their attorney, you
are not a member of the company, you are a self appointed voicebox.
Zip
Jim Wald
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<5uskes$6...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Steve, coincidentally, just as your private individuals saw your licenses
when they visited your place (I have no reason to doubt them or call
them names), I visited the VSR factory about a month ago, and the
letter from Miami Shores was on Albert's desk. I did not pick it up and
examine it, but it looked real from a glance. Actually, almost anybody
could have guessed that I have visited the factory, since I have said
repeatedly that I have heard ALL the VSR speakers in a proper
listening room, beyond just shows.
If that was your last reply to me, so be it.
Jim
Jim Wald
AWRigby <awr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970905230...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Here is John's reply to Albert Von Schweikert's post:
>
> I find Mr. Von Schweikert's response to me of 4 Sept. 1997 (posted
> here by Jim Wald) most interesting!
>
> Frankly, after reading it I was reminded of a wonderful cartoon by
> Rodrigues that appeared in Audio Magazine
Yes, funny, John, but didn't you already shoot that wad when you
had Zipser post the actual cartoon here about a week ago?
>
> Many of the explanations provided by Mr. Von Schweikert to explain how
> his (and other designer's) loudspeakers work and perform do not use
words,
> terms and expressions universally used and understood by competent
> engineers and physicists. As a consequence, Albert might wish to polish
> his grasp of the fundamentals associated with network theory, array
theory,
> radiation patterns, wave propagation phenomena, radiation properties of
> common types of musical instruments, etc.
>
I address this below, but when you come up with new ideas and designs,
you have to give them new names, or name them after yourself. I would
bet that Albert's grasp of the Fundamentals is on a par with your own,
with greater emphasis on current thinking.
>
> Further, those who might be tempted to believe that everything known
> about loudspeaker theory and design can be traced to efforts made
> during the past decade or two should peruse the book
> LOUDSPEAKERS, by N.W. Mc Lachlan, D.Sc., published in 1924
> by Oxford at the Clarendon Press. (Reading this book can be a
> humbling experience - for there has been precious little added to
> basic theory since that time!)
>
Since Albert designed raw drivers for a living, I think he has a pretty
good grasp of this.
> It appeals to me that there is no reason (other than questionable
> marketing motives) for a loudspeaker designer to "invent" such amorphous
> terms as "Global Axis Integration Network" (GAIN), Acoustic Inverse
> Replication Theory (AIR), etc.
Since Albert's speaker designs and crossover designs involve
original thinking, he wanted to express them in a descriptive way.
A lot of engineers name their original thinking after themselves,
which is a widely accepted practice for an original engineering
design, like the D'Appolito array and the Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.
I have a hard time understanding while it is such a sticking point
when Albert uses what he believes is a descriptive name. Would
you have an easier time with Albert's designs if he called his
dispersion pattern/speaker layout as a Von Schweikert Array
instead of Acoustic Inverse Response, or if he called his crossover
design the Von Schweikert crossover instead of Global Axis
Integration Network? If you think about it, I think you can get
over this "name" thing. He has developed NEW ideas and NEW
implementations. He had to call them something.
>
> And the many pseudo-scientific terms and flooby-dust explanations
> used by Albert to describe the supposed attributes of his loudspeaker
> designs are hardly worthy on one wanting to be known as an engineer
> or competent designer.
>
As I said, when you have original thinking and design original designs,
you have to call them something. DAL could hardly claim original
thinking to first order crossovers, nor to the D'Appolito array, and
even the felt around the tweeter (which was in prior art, by such
companies such as Bozak). New ideas are hardly "flooby-dust".
Remember, the head of the US Patent office wanted to CLOSE
the office in the first decade of this century, because he stated
that everything that could be invented had been invented. If
everything that can be invented has been invented, it is easy
to get stuck in the '20s and '30s. This makes it easy to dismiss
new ideas as "Flooby-dust". It is the difference between the
state of the art circa the Wright Brothers and the state of the art
circa today's Boeing.
> Assertions that a piano radiates an "omni-directional" or a "spherical"
> soundwave is absolute nonsense. The sound radiated by a piano over
> the audio spectrum, be it an upright, grand or a baby grand, is hardly
> omni-directional or spherical.
>
Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear clear
sound anywhere in that circle. If I walk around VSR VR-4s, I also hear
a remarkably complete soundfield for what are essentially NOT omni-
directional speakers. If I walk around a pair of DAL SC-IVs (and I have),
there is a remarkably narrow soundfield. You did design these things
to be played in a real listening room, didn't you, even though you only
have a usable listening area ONE SEAT WIDE?. Your speakers
sound Great in that ONE seating position, but you are out of luck
if you have any family or friends (my BIG problem with DAL speakers)
and if you don't push them too hard.
>
> And then, there is the problem one encounters with Albert's claim that
> his loudspeakers, with 24 dB/octave crossovers, exhibit "phase-coherent"
> performance properties (with excellent impulse and step responses). Not
> so! Unless Albert has found a means for defying the laws of physics and
> the teachings of engineering, it is, simply put, not possible. Although a
> properly-designed 4th-order (24 dB/octave) crossover network provides
> "in-phase addition" of the high-pass and low-pass signals, at the
crossover
> frequency, they are actually 360 degrees out-of-phase (one full cycle).
> The only exception to this is an "active digital type of crossover
> network", where the phase component is not preserved in the
> "digital-domain". The use of a 24 dB/octave, 4th-order crossover network
> (with time-aligned drivers) yields a loudspeaker with impulse and step
> responses that are not minimum-phase and which have very distorted
> waveshapes - contrary to what Albert says and advertises. (We have
> accurate MLSSA measurements to prove it!)
Now, here's something you can clearly debate with Albert. Stick to
this stuff, instead of personal attacks. That's what all of us audiophiles
out here want.
>
> Albert also drops the names of many well-known designers and engineers
> he claims to have worked with and learned from in the past - such as Dick
> Heyser. I knew Dick very well before he died and cannot imagine him ever
> condoning the technical gobbledygook being exploited by Albert. Dick, by
> the way, reviewed my first commercially-marketed loudspeaker, the Duntech
> Labs DL-15, in the August, 1976 issue of Audio Magazine - as the most
> accurate reproducer of a piano he had ever heard (his most demanding
test).
> Subsequent reviews of DAL loudspeakers in several respected audiophile
> mags throught the world confirm our claims for accuracy. (See the reviews
> of DAL's SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers in various issues of
Stereophile
> and compare their independent measurements with those we publish.)
John, it was Dick Heyser who personally showed Albert the complete
fallacy in believing that a "speaker that measured perfectly" was going
to be a speaker that sounded good, AND who personally pointed out
to Albert the lobing caused by the flaws in first order crossovers. He
told him that Albert, then, like you still today, was simply measuring
the wrong things and needed to measure more domains. Of course,
this was in the early '70s, and Albert did learn from this.
How much in common do your current SC speakers have with those
DL-15 speakers? And 21 YEARS AGO, there were no Wilson,
Von Schweikert or, for that matter, Dunlavy SC speakers to compare
the DL-15s to, as the most accurate reproducers of piano sound.
Your speakers have improved in the 21 years since the DL-15, haven't
they? Like I said, your speakers sound GREAT in that ONE seating
position (again, my BIG problem with DAL speakers), and if you don't
push them too hard. But to get your perfect measurements, you have
to NOT measure the things that show the VSR superiority, and you
have be willing to listen to your speakers alone, with your head locked
in the proverbial "audio vise". That's just too much of a trade off.
And to quote the glowing August 1996 Stereophile review, which you
allude to, of the SC-VIs: "When more than one listener at a time
wanted to appreciate their soundstaging, it was 'stereo choo-choo'
time. J. Gordon Holt observed during one listening session that
'the Signature VIs are the largest pair of headphones in the history
of audio'".
And what great headphones the SC-VIs are!! I REALLY like them.
They sound great, but you do not openly disclose the design
trade-offs you have made, that result in making the SCs
"headphones". Since I have friends and family, since I use my
speakers for home theater as well (and home theater is more
fun when there is more than one viewer), and since I also have
my desk off to the side of my listening couch, giant headphones
are not my first choice in speaker selection, not when there exists
the WIlson X-1s and the entire line on Von Schweikert VR speakers,
all of which are NOT giant headphones. The newer design theories
that Albert employees gives you a sonic experience like the SC's,
without the "audio vise".
>
> Last, but not least, DAL publishes a full set of anechoic chamber
> measurements, with guaranteed accuracy, for every loudspeaker model the
> company manufactures. And every loudspeaker is individually measured
> (and stored in files for future reference) in one of our two large
anechoic
> chambers, accompanied by an array of the best and most accurate
> measurement equipment available. Any purchaser of our loudspeakers
> can obtain copies of these measurements, free of charge, by merely
> requesting them.
This will be important to me as soon as I move into an anechoic
chamber. More important to me is how a speaker behaves in my
real listening rooms
>
> I have written the above, not to belittle Albert, his designs or his
> loudspeakers. There is plenty of room in the marketplace to accommodate
> the tastes of a wide variety of purchasers. And I believe there is a
"place"
> for loudspeakers that exhibit a "lush, sweet, nice, pretty, engaging,
> etc." sound character. But such qualities should not be referred to as
> accurate. I also believe that there are two kinds of accuracy:
subjective
> and objective. Subjective accuracy is relative to the individual
"preferences
> and tastes" of the listener. Objective accuracy, by contrast, must be
> verifiable by a combination of a complete set of accurate and meaningful
> measurements, coupled with listening comparisons (in real-time) with live
> music - as we do during the season with our local symphony and occasional
> comparisons with a string quartet, piano, etc., here at our plant. In the
> end, I sincerely believe that most serious music lovers will wish to
listen
> to and purchase loudspeakers and other system components that provide the
> highest level of objectively verifiable accuracy. For their wish will be
> to replicate the "original live experience" in their own listening
> environment - without the acoustics of that environment being
> superimposed on the accoustics of the environment within which the
> recording was made!
John, not to belittle you, but it seems that you are still urging that a
speakers only value is how it measures according to your LIMITED set
of measurements (which, surprise, favor you). The more complete
of measurements that Albert urges and real-world performance are
needed to give a complete picture of a speaker's abilities.
>
> Yes, Albert, we take "true accuracy" very seriously.
And he takes in-room performance very seriously.
>
> Lets all work together to make performance specs and advertising claims
> more honest, complete and meanigful. If we do not, I fear we will lose
> the long-term confidence and respect of the audiophile community.
That's exactly what Albert tells me he wants, as long as the specs and
claims are MEANINGFUL.
Jim
BTW: Albert had no hand in this response, in case you were wondering,
but I know him well enough to know he would concur with everything here.
He has told me that he will respond to you on the technical issues and
is working on his promised Part II of his response to your original post.
Arny Krüger
Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
<01bcbb19$73fa6ee0$0819369d@jimwa2>...
>
> Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear clear
> sound anywhere in that circle.
That is true, but its not the same sound at every angle by a long stretch.
Furthermore, if I walk around a $39 JBL speaker from Circiut City playing a
piano, I hear "clear sound" anywhere in that circle, depending on how low I
want to lower the bar for "clear". The claim of "clear sound" is
meaningless to me or anybody who knows that words have meanings and there
are better and worse ways to describe the directional properties of musical
instruments and speakers.
Furthermore, concert pianos are configured as directional reproducers, with
adjustable directionality. How does a speaker know which adjustment of the
top was in place when the recording was being made? Let us call a spade, a
spade - this is a ludicrous claim.
>If I walk around VSR VR-4s, I also hear
> a remarkably complete soundfield for what are essentially NOT omni-
> directional speakers. If I walk around a pair of DAL SC-IVs (and I
have),
> there is a remarkably narrow soundfield.
Wherein the listener usually sits. If recordings of pianos were always made
in anechoic chambers, then the idea that a speaker's sound field should
duplicate that of the original instrument would have a fraction of truth in
it. But that is not how things work these days.
John Nunes
: Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
: > Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear clear
: > sound anywhere in that circle.
Yeah, sure, if one doesn't listen very carefully!
I worked for a world-class tracker organbuilder helping with the finishing
voicing. There is usually a person working on the pipes within the organ
on the walkboard, another at the keyboard and often another wandering
around in the church nave or main part of the hall, residence etc. We
play scales and single notes in order to find bad sounding pipes, ones
that are not even in respect to the others, etc. You know what one of the
most important things the two not inside the organ do? The person at the
keyboard has to constantly keep moving his head around to try to get an
'average' perspective of what is happening so he can give as reliable
information to the person working on the pipes as is possible, making
adjustments to the pipes as needed. The person farther back is slowly
walking around and sometimes stopping, doing the same thing.
You know what would happen to somebody who made statements like the one
you did above Mr. Wald, and the implicit behaviours? They would be
eventually fired, because they wern't helping enough.
All organbuilders that value their reputations for musical excellence work
this way.
AVS claims on radiation patterns for musical instruments are wrong. Eat
it.
- John Nunes
Andre T. Yew
"Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> Assertions that a piano radiates an "omni-directional" or a "spherical"
>> soundwave is absolute nonsense. The sound radiated by a piano over
>> the audio spectrum, be it an upright, grand or a baby grand, is hardly
>> omni-directional or spherical.
>>
>Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear clear
>sound anywhere in that circle. If I walk around VSR VR-4s, I also hear
>a remarkably complete soundfield for what are essentially NOT omni-
>directional speakers.
Jim, there are a couple of points that you and VSR seem to be missing:
1. You can walk around a piano, and you do hear clear sound at all angles
around a piano, but that does not imply it is an omnidirectional radiator.
This is just as a cardioid mic can clearly pick up sound all around, but
that does not make it an omnidirectional mic. The piano, having physical
structures whose dimensions are close to all the wavelengths of frequencies
it can produce, cannot produce a uniform omnidirectional sound. If you ask
piano people, there are clearly preferred seating directions when you are
listening to a piano. And no, the seating preferences have nothing to do
with being able to see the pianist's hands. Clearly the piano is not an
omnidirectional radiator, but if you still don't believe that, try these
two experiments:
a. Sit down at a piano, press the lowest key on the left, and note the
direction and location of the sound. Press the highest key on the right,
and note the direction and location of the sound. Play a scale, and note
the direction and movement of the sound in a piano.
b. Sit out in the audience at a piano recital. Note where from the piano
various different notes of different pitches come from.
2. Even if 1 weren't the case, the assertion that a speaker should be
omni because it's reproducing an instrument that is omni is wrong. The
soundfield produced by an instrument in a room is sampled at but a few
points by microphones. Except in the most pathological cases, and for
the cases where less than a few thousand microphones are used (see Gerzon's
Ambisonics papers for this figure), the microphone does not and cannot know
what is going on at the other side of the instrument, for example. You
cannot even derive from the mic signal whether the instrument is even a
true omni radiator, if such a thing even exists.
3. Even if 1 and 2 were not the case (and that is impossible), what if
you were listening to a non-omni instrument?
Look, there are very valid, good, solid reasons for having a wide-dispersion
radiator for a speaker, but please don't wrap it up in BS.
--Andre
--
PGP public key available
Ian B. McLean
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
> <01bcbb19$73fa6ee0$0819369d@jimwa2>...
> >
> > Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear
> clear
>
> > sound anywhere in that circle.
>
> That is true, but its not the same sound at every angle by a long
> stretch.
Just leave the lid off as is so often the case, especially in
recordings. Even without this, the sound IS omni directional from the
rear of the soundboard (and therefore TOTALLY omni with the lid down).
So, AK's "long stretch" is, in his, nit picking, significantly LESS
correct than Jim's "circle".
As a person who has played and recorded many pianos, in many different
environments, with many different microphones (and who sold Jon Dunlavy
his Yamaha C-7 piano when he was in Australia, with which he did many
experiments and recordings), I'm speaking from actual experience here.
No hypothesis, and little subjectivity (THAT must appeal to AK!?).
> Furthermore, concert pianos are configured as directional reproducers,
> with
> adjustable directionality.
Only partly, and ONLY when the lid is used to project the sound
emanating from the top of the soundboard. There is EQUAL (and often
MORE) sound emanating from the rear of the sound board and being
reflected off the concert stage floor.
> How does a speaker know which adjustment of the
> top was in place when the recording was being made? Let us call a
> spade, a
> spade - this is a ludicrous claim.
Well it most certainnly is NOT "ludicrous" (AK and ignorance). If the
mike was placed some disctance back from the piano then that mike is
picking up ALL the mixture of the piano's sounds, both directional and
reflected in the omni directional plane.
> >If I walk around VSR VR-4s, I also hear
> > a remarkably complete soundfield for what are essentially NOT omni-
> > directional speakers. If I walk around a pair of DAL SC-IVs (and I
> have),
> > there is a remarkably narrow soundfield.
>
> Wherein the listener usually sits. If recordings of pianos were always
> made
> in anechoic chambers, then the idea that a speaker's sound field
> should
> duplicate that of the original instrument would have a fraction of
> truth in
> it.
So, once again AK is off into the subjective twilight of his own mind
with this one. I don't remember reading ANY claims that stated that ANY
speaker could "duplicate that of the original instrument"(for a piano
you would need the bloody soundboard!). All that ANY speaker can hope to
achieve is to reproduce what a MICROPHONE picked up of that "original
instrument". Then, it is up to the speaker to try and make musical sense
of this in the totally compromised environment in which it is usually
being used.
IMHO, in a relatively narrow room a DAL speaker will sound more
musically realistic than a VSR. In my experience, in a wider room the
reverse is true. Indeed, in this circumstance, the realism achieved is
quite frightening by a VSR speaker.
Ian McLean
Jim Wald
Arny Krüger <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote in article
<01bcbb91$5f9e6780$1172...@crc3.concentric.net>...
>
>
> Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
> <01bcbb19$73fa6ee0$0819369d@jimwa2>...
> >
> > Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear
clear
> > sound anywhere in that circle.
>
> That is true, but its not the same sound at every angle by a long
stretch.
> Furthermore, if I walk around a $39 JBL speaker from Circiut City playing
a
> piano, I hear "clear sound" anywhere in that circle, depending on how low
I
> want to lower the bar for "clear". The claim of "clear sound" is
> meaningless to me or anybody who knows that words have meanings and there
> are better and worse ways to describe the directional properties of
musical
> instruments and speakers.
>
Arny,
You know, I could have expressed this much better. A real instrument,
in a real room, does not have a spotlight-like sound field. More like
VSR speakers, a real instrument has a very wide sweet spot, that will
allow you stand up, move from side to side, and allow more than one
listener take part in the listening experience (and the home theater
experience, as well). Listen, if you want giant headphones, the
DAL speakers do sound great. My two problems with the DALs'
narrow horizontal and vertical sweet spots are the "sound-for-one"
aspect, as noted by Stereophile, and the fact that a lot of the
sound one hears, even from a directional instrument, is reflected
from the walls of the listening room, and such a narrow focus, to
me, takes the life out of the sound, such as the experience of
using headphones or if you listened in an anechoic chamber.
Albert cited several authorities that agree that a wide "sweet spot"
leads to a more real listening experience.
Sorry that I didn't express this better the first time.
Jim
Ian B. McLean
John Nunes wrote:
So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this inlude
a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
A piano from a small distance, DOES become omni directional dependant
upon the deployment of its lid. A pipe organ is a collection of greatly
varied tonal sources, spread over a wide and deep are.
This is about as stupid a comparison as I've read on this list.
Then, JN states and the conclusion, "eat it", to Jim Wald.
Once again Jim Wald's unqualified "circle" is the less incorrect than
JN's pip organ!
Ian McLean
> : Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
>
> : > Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can
> hear clear
> : > sound anywhere in that circle.
>
Arny Krüger
Ian B. McLean <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> wrote in article
<34134288...@c031.aone.net.au>...
> John Nunes wrote:
>
> So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this inlude
> a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
>
> A piano from a small distance, DOES become omni directional dependant
> upon the deployment of its lid. A pipe organ is a collection of greatly
> varied tonal sources, spread over a wide and deep are.
I think you need some "medication" that clarifies the difference between
"unidirectional" and "omnidirectional".
> This is about as stupid a comparison as I've read on this list.
Does this post have something to do with your irritation about my opinion
of power cord magic?
The fact is that many books on acoustics talk about the directional
radiation pattern of various musical instruments. So do may articles about
the technical sonic characteristics of classic instruments like the Strad.
To go further, let's talk about the directional radiation pattern of a
viola being played by a person. Now, the viola itself is directional
proabably because it has strings on one side and a wood box on the other.
However, have it played by a human being, who acts as an
absorber/blocker/diffractor depending on frequency, and we've got nothing
like spherical radiation going at all frequencies.
Arny Krüger
Ian B. McLean <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> wrote in article
<341340F4...@c031.aone.net.au>...
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
> > <01bcbb19$73fa6ee0$0819369d@jimwa2>...
> > >
> > > Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear
> > clear
> >
> > > sound anywhere in that circle.
> >
> > That is true, but its not the same sound at every angle by a long
> > stretch.
>
> Just leave the lid off as is so often the case, especially in
> recordings.
This is a misleading comment, because the claim was not that piano's can't
be contrived to be less directional. The claimsis that as usually used,
Pianos are directional. When was the last time you went to a live classical
concert and saw a piano with its lid off? I can't seeing that done at a
live concert, ever.
> Even without this, the sound IS omni directional from the
> rear of the soundboard (and therefore TOTALLY omni with the lid down).
> So, AK's "long stretch" is, in his, nit picking, significantly LESS
> correct than Jim's "circle".
This is a misleading comment, because the claim was not that piano's can't
be contrived to be less directional. The claimsis that as usually used,
Pianos are directional. When was the last time you went to a live classical
concert and saw a piano with its shut? I can't seeing that done at a live
concert, ever.
> As a person who has played and recorded many pianos, in many different
> environments, with many different microphones (and who sold Jon Dunlavy
> his Yamaha C-7 piano when he was in Australia, with which he did many
> experiments and recordings), I'm speaking from actual experience here.
> No hypothesis, and little subjectivity (THAT must appeal to AK!?).
Live performances and recording studio technique are two different things.
>
> > Furthermore, concert pianos are configured as directional reproducers,
> > with
> > adjustable directionality.
>
> Only partly, and ONLY when the lid is used to project the sound
> emanating from the top of the soundboard. There is EQUAL (and often
> MORE) sound emanating from the rear of the sound board and being
> reflected off the concert stage floor.
Obviously, you've been to oneor more live classical concerts. Ever seen a
piano being used at one at one with its lid shut or removed? Just is not
done. I think that lids are shut primarily to protect the innards from dust
and usually opened and positioned to direct sound at the audience.
> > How does a speaker know which adjustment of the
> > top was in place when the recording was being made? Let us call a
> > spade, a
> > spade - this is a ludicrous claim.
>
> Well it most certainnly is NOT "ludicrous" (AK and ignorance). If the
> mike was placed some disctance back from the piano then that mike is
> picking up ALL the mixture of the piano's sounds, both directional and
> reflected in the omni directional plane.
Since when do recordings of live concerts use just one microphone?
> So, once again AK is off into the subjective twilight of his own mind
> with this one. I don't remember reading ANY claims that stated that ANY
> speaker could "duplicate that of the original instrument"(for a piano
> you would need the bloody soundboard!).
I think you need to take a trip through VS's web site. Here is the URL:
http://www.vonschweikert.com/. Here is a good page for you to review:
http://www.vonschweikert.com/theory.htm
> All that ANY speaker can hope to
> achieve is to reproduce what a MICROPHONE picked up of that "original
> instrument". Then, it is up to the speaker to try and make musical sense
> of this in the totally compromised environment in which it is usually
> being used.
I totally agree. Now, look at some basic original documents from VS and see
if they agree with us!
>
> IMHO, in a relatively narrow room a DAL speaker will sound more
> musically realistic than a VSR. In my experience, in a wider room the
> reverse is true. Indeed, in this circumstance, the realism achieved is
> quite frightening by a VSR speaker.
Since I listen to live music in standard venues for live music listening
all the time, realism is never ever frightening to me! ;-) However, total
realism is elusive.
Arny Krüger
Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
<01bcbc05$ae5fbee0$0819369d@jimwa2>...
> A real instrument,
> in a real room, does not have a spotlight-like sound field. More like
> VSR speakers, a real instrument has a very wide sweet spot, that will
> allow you stand up, move from side to side, and allow more than one
> listener take part in the listening experience (and the home theater
> experience, as well).
There are several issues here. One of them relates to the number of
speakers that are required or helpful to get the sort of imaging you
describe. Bear in mind that my best personal systems includes NHT 2.5i's,
which are not exactly spotlights.
Stereo is the past and present. 5.1 is on the horizon and even here a
little bit, and some folks are seriously talking about 10.1. In that
context what are the characteristics of the best possible speakers? My
answer is:
(1) Having not actually listened exhaustively to ALL the alternatives, I
don't know for sure in my own mind.
(2) I think that as the number of speakers in the room increases, the
desirability of things like subsystems pointing off in various directions
that play duplicate program material (the same discrete channel) as some
other speaker will be greatly reduced, if it exists at all today.
> Listen, if you want giant headphones, the
> DAL speakers do sound great.
Some of John's comments suggest to me that he thinks of speakers that are
something like headphones in terms of resolution is a good idea.
> My two problems with the DALs'
> narrow horizontal and vertical sweet spots are the "sound-for-one"
> aspect, as noted by Stereophile, and the fact that a lot of the
> sound one hears, even from a directional instrument, is reflected
> from the walls of the listening room, and such a narrow focus, to
> me, takes the life out of the sound, such as the experience of
> using headphones or if you listened in an anechoic chamber.
That may be true for 2-channel stereo in a dead room, but what about all
the present and future alternatives?
> Albert cited several authorities that agree that a wide "sweet spot"
> leads to a more real listening experience.
If I were an authority, he could cite me! ;-). However, in the current
technological context, the usual approaches to broadening the sweet spot
involve more than 2 speakers and involve more than 2 discrete channels of
program material.
Tom Melanson
Ian B. McLean wrote:
>
>
> IMHO, in a relatively narrow room a DAL speaker will sound more
> musically realistic than a VSR. In my experience, in a wider room the
> reverse is true. Indeed, in this circumstance, the realism achieved is
> quite frightening by a VSR speaker.
>
Having had the VR-4's and 4.5's for quite a long period of time in my
home and having spent quite some auditioning the DAL SC-IV and V, I
believe that Mr. McLean has stated as succinctly as I have seen, THE
main difference between the two systems. In a studio environment where
you as engineer would be sitting behind a mixing console, the DAL's
would be hard to beat for sheer sonic accuracy. OTOH, in a home
environment, particularly in a large room, the VSR's provide a large
soundstage that is quite engaging and realistic.
John J. Nunes
In message <34134288...@c031.aone.net.au> - "Ian B. McLean"
<ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
:>So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this inlude
:>a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
Quote from the VR web site:
*
An omnidirectional source radiating a spherical sound pressure wave is
comparable to an acoustic musical instrument such as a guitar, piano, or
drum.
*
More than one instrument is mentioned. No exclusion mentioned of
others. Maybe VS should mention that the claims of their speaker are
met only when playing guitar, piano or drums through them?
>A piano from a small distance, DOES become omni directional dependant
:>upon the deployment of its lid.
It looks as if this claim will probably lead to just a yes it is / no it
isn't rao flamefest. I don't agree with the idea b/c I think pianos and
most instruments sound best a greater distance away.
Most instruments are quite directional.
organ is a collection of greatly
:>varied tonal sources, spread over a wide and deep area.
What organ? Does that go for lap organs too? How about an
independently standing small tracker?
Love your definition, mostly because it leaves out more than half of the
organs that exist.
Tell about design and construction of the instrument and the styles
possible. Do they all have the same radiation patterns?
:>This is about as stupid a comparison as I've read on this list.
You say it's a comparison for your convienience. You don't address the
issue of radiation patterns in musical instruments, but go on a tangent
side issue about how certain instruments maybe should not be considered
for use in VS claims.
:>Then, JN states and the conclusion, "eat it", to Jim Wald.
So these 'spherical' claims are Jim Wald's? He certainly supports them,
but I doubt they originated with him.
:>Once again Jim Wald's unqualified "circle" is the less incorrect than
:>JN's pipe organ!
Sadly (for me), I don't own a pipe organ. I'm not wealthy enough.
This and the VS website are the only places I've seen where claims are
made about instruments radiating spherically. I have a lot of
professional collegues in instrument building that are much more
experienced than I, and I have forwarded them some of the claims and
messages, asking them to comment. So far, not one has agreed with the
idea.
- John Nunes
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
John J. Nunes wrote:
> This and the VS website are the only places I've seen where claims are
> made about instruments radiating spherically. I have a lot of
> professional collegues in instrument building that are much more
> experienced than I, and I have forwarded them some of the claims and
> messages, asking them to comment. So far, not one has agreed with the
> idea.
>
> - John Nunes
John:
If you measured the polar response of ANY instrument at different
frequencies, you would find the polar response is quite ragged. No
instrument acts as a perfect radiating sphere at any frequency. Arnie
was quite correct here, and JW was quite wrong.
BTW, If VSR's claims were valid, would that not infer that Gallo's
speakers are even better - since they more closely approximate the sound
of a radiating sphere :-)
I would like to see published tests of the polar response of the
Dunlavys vs VSR's - has anyone done this?
Cheers
Zip
Tom Morley
In article <5v09hf$2se$1...@news.wco.com>, cha...@WCO.COM (John J. Nunes) wrote:
General comments on Albert Von Schweikert's responce to John Dunlavy.
I must say that what I find so irritating about Mr. Von Schweikert's
writting is his missuse and missleading use of scientific and
engineering terms. If he simply said that his speakers
sound good, then that would be the end of it.
(My credentials -- Applied Mathematics Ph. D. from Carnegie-Mellon --
complete vita on my web site...)
Mr. VS: "..Since the delay of my high order crossover
does not exceeed..."
"...You also clain that my speaker have faults with
impulse responce delays, and that also false as it is not
an audible problem..."
Mr. VS had previous admitted that in fact, as he is well aware,
a 24 dB analogue crossover cannot be time alligned. Case closed.
The delay is clearly and immiediatly visable in the impulse response.
Audibility of non-audibility is not the issue. Makng scieitific
sounding claims, that are, in fact, missleading is the issue. Mr. VS also
seems to use the presedence effect (first heard--- best heard) when it
suits his point of view, and ignore it (spherical sound waves ....)
when if doesn't.
Mr. VS: omnidirectional sound radiation vs. "transverse beam waves",
"HRTF"
The HRTR allows the ear to locallize beyond the usual left right stereo
immaging. Some recordings I've heard with in the ear microphones
are amazing. Front back side up down -- incredible. This however
has little or nothing to do with spherical waves... The ear responds
to whatever acoustic wave is at the ear. There seems to be a confusion
here on the part of Mr. VS. The ear respnds locally. Spherical waves
(of which just about everything can be composed ... that pesky
Fourier again!) are waves in space (and time) . The wave at the ear
can ane is a function of wave at other parts of the room --- but
the wave at a distance d from the ear cannot influence the sound at
the ear until such time as it has to propogate to the ear. The ear can
indeed move but the fact remains that the ear responds only to
the accoustic wave that is present at the ear.
Mr. VS: ....omnidirrection musical instuments...
Nonsense. Vary few instuments radiate the same in all directions.
Often they sould much different to the player than to the listner.
There are may dispersion plots in The Physics of Musical Instuments
(Neville H. Fletcher and Thomas D. Rossing, Springer Verlag 1991 --
Hearafter refered to TPOMI) and
they typically are very different at different frequencies and dirrections.
BTW a "spherical wave" can have two meanings 1) a fundamental
solution to the wave equation on p[herical coordinates. (TPOMI page 144)
2) A radially symmetric wave in space, propagating with atenuation,
but without distortion... (See my paper in SIAM review about 10 years
ago.. precise reference available off my web page..) What meaning
Mr. VS has for "spherical wave" is unknown to me.
Mr VS: ....inverse microphone...
I somply don't understand this at all. I can attach no scientific
meaning to this discussion.
Mr. VS: "Our rear ambience driver is not designed to bounce sound
of the read wall..."
In which case is should operate aneachoically. In this case the signal
at the listener (whether sedintary or mobile) is --- no appoximations --
the signal from front + the signal from back. (With, of couse phase
being included in what I mean by signal.) Presumably the rear
facing tweeter has a low dispersion to the front. If you take the
speakers outside can the rear facing tweeter be heard? If not,
then you are bouncing off walls. Case closed. If the front radiation of
the read facing tweeter is high, then there are another set of problems.
(Partail cancelation and addition due to phase differences...)
While Mr. VS's usenet posts (though third parties), web site,
and advertising use large and technical sounding words, they
often appear to have little scientific meaning.
Listening to Aufstieg und Gall Der Stadt Mahagonny
(Rise and fall of the city of Mahagonny) Kust Weill,
Capriccio, 10 160/161,
Dr. T. D Morley | My God! What does sound have
mor...@math.gatech.edu | to do with music?
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |-- George Ives to Charles Ives,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | as reported by Charles Ives.
SJMARCY
Tom Morley posts:
<<While Mr. VS's usenet posts (though third parties), web site, and
advertising use large and technical sounding words, they often appear to
have little scientific meaning.>>
Then you might really get a kick out of Bob Carver's (aka "Sideshow Bob")
cube or various cable / interconnect claims.
Stan
Stewart Pinkerton
"Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> writes:
I'd normally just to watch the interchange between the two designers,
but since you choose to join in, let's make it a party!
>> Many of the explanations provided by Mr. Von Schweikert to explain how
>> his (and other designer's) loudspeakers work and perform do not use
>words,
>> terms and expressions universally used and understood by competent
>> engineers and physicists. As a consequence, Albert might wish to polish
>> his grasp of the fundamentals associated with network theory, array
>theory,
>> radiation patterns, wave propagation phenomena, radiation properties of
>> common types of musical instruments, etc.
>>
>
>I address this below, but when you come up with new ideas and designs,
>you have to give them new names, or name them after yourself. I would
>bet that Albert's grasp of the Fundamentals is on a par with your own,
>with greater emphasis on current thinking.
Of course, if you don't actually have any *new* ideas, you can still
come up with new names, to make the advertising copy look good. I
think I'll take that bet. In fact, having just trawled through Alberts
Web page, and answered his post to me, I'll *definitely* take that
bet!
>Since Albert designed raw drivers for a living, I think he has a pretty
>good grasp of this.
Albert spent two years of his very varied career with a massive
organisation which produces drivers for Bose and Cerwin-Vega, among
others. It is not clear what his duties were during this period.
>> It appeals to me that there is no reason (other than questionable
>> marketing motives) for a loudspeaker designer to "invent" such amorphous
>> terms as "Global Axis Integration Network" (GAIN), Acoustic Inverse
>> Replication Theory (AIR), etc.
>
>Since Albert's speaker designs and crossover designs involve
>original thinking, he wanted to express them in a descriptive way.
>A lot of engineers name their original thinking after themselves,
>which is a widely accepted practice for an original engineering
>design, like the D'Appolito array and the Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.
The difference is that these named designers actually published their
work in peer-reviewed journals, the work therefore withstood scrutiny
and passed into the art. Albert has 'invented' nothing new. Look at
the detailed design of the VR-4 and it's successors, and you will see
them for what they are - a perfectly standard full-range driver system
in a high-dispersion mimimum-baffle box with built-in subwoofer and
super-tweeter. This is not new, the only addition to the basic
sub/satellite arrangement Albert has produced is the rear-firing
'ambience' driver, again hardly a new discovery. Albert has to use
technobabble expressions because his work is derivative of very old
knowledge. There is no 'von Schweikert' crossover or driver array,
because they would never pass scrutiny in the scientific and
engineering communities. It's interesting to note that his flagship
VR-10 design is a very straightforward d'Appolito array which does not
follow the same design principles as the VR-4, the single model upon
which the reputation of his company rests.
The fundamental goodness of using a single driver to cover the vital
midrange is an old, old principle, the problem is finding a driver
which is capable of doing this. Albert stretches the capacity of that
driver to its limits by using a 4th order crossover, other similar
designs, such as the B&W 801/2, use more conservative crossover points
and slopes. Perhaps his 'pushing the envelope' does indeed lead to
improved sound, but no way is this an original idea.
>I have a hard time understanding while it is such a sticking point
>when Albert uses what he believes is a descriptive name. Would
>you have an easier time with Albert's designs if he called his
>dispersion pattern/speaker layout as a Von Schweikert Array
>instead of Acoustic Inverse Response, or if he called his crossover
>design the Von Schweikert crossover instead of Global Axis
>Integration Network? If you think about it, I think you can get
>over this "name" thing. He has developed NEW ideas and NEW
>implementations. He had to call them something.
Nope, they are old ideas dressed up in new clothes. The fact that they
are also gobbledegook would prevent the use of his own name being
accepted into the art. "Acoustic Inverse Replication" is just plain
nonsense, and rear-facing ambient drivers to improve treble dispersion
are also old hat, as Dave Wilson knows.
>> And the many pseudo-scientific terms and flooby-dust explanations
>> used by Albert to describe the supposed attributes of his loudspeaker
>> designs are hardly worthy on one wanting to be known as an engineer
>> or competent designer.
>>
>As I said, when you have original thinking and design original designs,
>you have to call them something. DAL could hardly claim original
>thinking to first order crossovers, nor to the D'Appolito array, and
>even the felt around the tweeter (which was in prior art, by such
>companies such as Bozak).
Interesting then, that John Dunlavy was granted a US patent for the
use of such acoustic damping materials.....................
The difference here is that DAL is not *claiming* to use new 'wonder'
techniques, Albert is.
>New ideas are hardly "flooby-dust".
Alberts are...................
>Remember, the head of the US Patent office wanted to CLOSE
>the office in the first decade of this century, because he stated
>that everything that could be invented had been invented. If
>everything that can be invented has been invented, it is easy
>to get stuck in the '20s and '30s. This makes it easy to dismiss
>new ideas as "Flooby-dust".
Actually, it is examination of Alberts claims that leads one to
dismiss them as "Flooby-dust".
>It is the difference between the
>state of the art circa the Wright Brothers and the state of the art
>circa today's Boeing.
You'll find that the Boeing 777 stays in the air for *exactly* the
same reasons that the Wright Flyer did. Boeing do not attempt to
explain this as "Aerodynamic Inverse Replication".............
>> Assertions that a piano radiates an "omni-directional" or a "spherical"
>> soundwave is absolute nonsense. The sound radiated by a piano over
>> the audio spectrum, be it an upright, grand or a baby grand, is hardly
>> omni-directional or spherical.
>>
>Really, if I walk in a 360 degree circle around a piano, I can hear clear
>sound anywhere in that circle.
Listen harder, you'll find that the sound at the keyboard side is
totally different in the mid and treble, from that in front of the
soundboard.
> If I walk around VSR VR-4s, I also hear
>a remarkably complete soundfield for what are essentially NOT omni-
>directional speakers.
Try reading up a bit on acoustic theory. Above the frequencies at
which that mimimum-baffle midrange stops being omni-directional, the
ambience driver blends in to maintain an omni-directional polar
response. The VR-4 *is* an omni-directional design. I'm not saying
that's necessarily a bad thing, but please try to understand the
concepts you're discussing.
> If I walk around a pair of DAL SC-IVs (and I have),
>there is a remarkably narrow soundfield. You did design these things
>to be played in a real listening room, didn't you, even though you only
>have a usable listening area ONE SEAT WIDE?. Your speakers
>sound Great in that ONE seating position, but you are out of luck
>if you have any family or friends (my BIG problem with DAL speakers)
>and if you don't push them too hard.
This is a problem with many top-class speakers. I think you'll find
that speakers which image exceptionally well do tend to suffer the
'giant headphone' effect. That's certainly been my experience - the
sharper the image, the narrower the sweet spot. I suspect it's the
acoustic analogue of depth of field in photography.
>> And then, there is the problem one encounters with Albert's claim that
>> his loudspeakers, with 24 dB/octave crossovers, exhibit "phase-coherent"
>> performance properties (with excellent impulse and step responses). Not
>> so! Unless Albert has found a means for defying the laws of physics and
>> the teachings of engineering, it is, simply put, not possible. Although a
>> properly-designed 4th-order (24 dB/octave) crossover network provides
>> "in-phase addition" of the high-pass and low-pass signals, at the
>crossover
>> frequency, they are actually 360 degrees out-of-phase (one full cycle).
>> The only exception to this is an "active digital type of crossover
>> network", where the phase component is not preserved in the
>> "digital-domain". The use of a 24 dB/octave, 4th-order crossover network
>> (with time-aligned drivers) yields a loudspeaker with impulse and step
>> responses that are not minimum-phase and which have very distorted
>> waveshapes - contrary to what Albert says and advertises. (We have
>> accurate MLSSA measurements to prove it!)
>
>Now, here's something you can clearly debate with Albert. Stick to
>this stuff, instead of personal attacks. That's what all of us audiophiles
>out here want.
The trouble is, it's not debatable. This is all engineering 101. Note
also that John is intimating that he can *prove* Alberts technobabble
claims are rubbish, from direct measurements..............
Let's see Albert produce a square wave response plot for the VR-4, or
especially for the VR-8. If it really is an 'inverse acoustic
replication' of an omni-directional microphone, it should be a
perfectly phase-aligned square wave output. Care to bet on it?
>> Albert also drops the names of many well-known designers and engineers
>> he claims to have worked with and learned from in the past - such as Dick
>> Heyser. I knew Dick very well before he died and cannot imagine him ever
>> condoning the technical gobbledygook being exploited by Albert. Dick, by
>> the way, reviewed my first commercially-marketed loudspeaker, the Duntech
>> Labs DL-15, in the August, 1976 issue of Audio Magazine - as the most
>> accurate reproducer of a piano he had ever heard (his most demanding
>test).
>> Subsequent reviews of DAL loudspeakers in several respected audiophile
>> mags throught the world confirm our claims for accuracy. (See the reviews
>
>> of DAL's SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers in various issues of
>Stereophile
>> and compare their independent measurements with those we publish.)
>
>John, it was Dick Heyser who personally showed Albert the complete
>fallacy in believing that a "speaker that measured perfectly" was going
>to be a speaker that sounded good, AND who personally pointed out
>to Albert the lobing caused by the flaws in first order crossovers.
That's why you use a d'Appolito array with odd-order crossovers, to
reduce vertical lobing. Albert should know this, as his 'flagship'
VR-10 *is* a d'Appolito array, but weirdly uses 4th order crossovers,
classically wrong for this design.
>He
>told him that Albert, then, like you still today, was simply measuring
>the wrong things and needed to measure more domains. Of course,
>this was in the early '70s, and Albert did learn from this.
Let's just look at that carefully worded resume then. Albert started
tinkering with speakers as a teenager, and made PA cabs for a rock
band while he was their guitarist (well, Marshall stacks *are*
expensive). Albert then went to Georgia State University, failed to
graduate and landed a lab assistant job at Cal Tech, eventually
working under Dr Richard Heyser, a well-respected audio designer. Dr
Heysers design group, including Albert, worked on a plasma driver, and
on the well-known principles of minimum-baffle speakers using 4th
order crossovers (hey, this sounds familiar!), to produce the Vortex.
Albert then left Cal Tech, for a job working for Dr Oscar Heil,
inventor of the Air Motion Transformer. Albert designed the first
order crossover (hardly a challenge, but interesting!) for this
speaker, and assisted Dr Heil in building a very strange device called
the Transar.
Albert moved on once again again to KSC Industries, a massive oem
driver manufacturer supplying Bose, Cerwin-Vega, JBL etc, where he
claims to have worked on over 100 projects in two years. Lessee,
that's a new project every week, clearly lots of deep thought and
careful development down there at KSC! In his spare time (!) Albert
did a little moonlighting and came up with the Vortex Screen (he does
love those weird names!), which Bob Harley of Sterophile really liked.
Encouraged by this, Albert left KSC. The Vortex Screen flopped.
In 1991, Albert started doing a little outside consultancy work for
Counterpoint and designed a series of speakers for them. None of these
has stood the test of time, although some were briefly acclaimed by
the press. Finally, Albert came up with a winner in the VR-4, and is
now busy churning out variations on this theme, although curiously,
his huge VR-10 flagship bears a striking resemblance to a standard
d'Appolito array, even though he is asking upwards of $60,000 for this
behemoth, based on the reputation of an entirely different and vastly
cheaper design.
A fascinating man, but apparently an empirical experimenter and not a
real design engineer. Caveat Emptor!
>How much in common do your current SC speakers have with those
>DL-15 speakers?
Well, for a start there's the fact that both the SC-IV and SC-VI
appear in the the Stereophile class A list.
> And 21 YEARS AGO, there were no Wilson,
>Von Schweikert or, for that matter, Dunlavy SC speakers to compare
>the DL-15s to, as the most accurate reproducers of piano sound.
There was however, the Quad ESL-63.
>Your speakers have improved in the 21 years since the DL-15, haven't
>they?
Presumably, which means that they will therefore be much better than
the speaker which was then so highly acclaimed. This is a criticism of
the SC line?
> Like I said, your speakers sound GREAT in that ONE seating
>position (again, my BIG problem with DAL speakers), and if you don't
>push them too hard.
It's a big problem with a large number of the worlds finest speakers,
it implies a different set of trade-offs from the omni brigade, like
the VR series. Which is preferable is a matter of personal choice, not
absolute accuracy.
>But to get your perfect measurements, you have
>to NOT measure the things that show the VSR superiority, and you
>have be willing to listen to your speakers alone, with your head locked
>in the proverbial "audio vise". That's just too much of a trade off.
>
>And to quote the glowing August 1996 Stereophile review, which you
>allude to, of the SC-VIs: "When more than one listener at a time
>wanted to appreciate their soundstaging, it was 'stereo choo-choo'
>time. J. Gordon Holt observed during one listening session that
>'the Signature VIs are the largest pair of headphones in the history
>of audio'".
>
>And what great headphones the SC-VIs are!! I REALLY like them.
>They sound great, but you do not openly disclose the design
>trade-offs you have made, that result in making the SCs
>"headphones". Since I have friends and family, since I use my
>speakers for home theater as well (and home theater is more
>fun when there is more than one viewer), and since I also have
>my desk off to the side of my listening couch, giant headphones
>are not my first choice in speaker selection, not when there exists
>the WIlson X-1s and the entire line on Von Schweikert VR speakers,
>all of which are NOT giant headphones. The newer design theories
>that Albert employees gives you a sonic experience like the SC's,
>without the "audio vise".
I don't think there's any serious argument that a more diffuse image
is better suited to HT use, hence the popularity of omni and bipolar
designs, such as the Mirage range, and indeed the VSR speakers.
>>
>> Last, but not least, DAL publishes a full set of anechoic chamber
>> measurements, with guaranteed accuracy, for every loudspeaker model the
>> company manufactures. And every loudspeaker is individually measured
>> (and stored in files for future reference) in one of our two large
>anechoic
>> chambers, accompanied by an array of the best and most accurate
>> measurement equipment available. Any purchaser of our loudspeakers
>> can obtain copies of these measurements, free of charge, by merely
>> requesting them.
>
>This will be important to me as soon as I move into an anechoic
>chamber. More important to me is how a speaker behaves in my
>real listening rooms
You can predict real room response very well from a *full* set of
anechoic responses. The measuring microphone doesn't only work on
axis, y'know! Albert, on the other hand has, *no* anechoic measurement
facilities aside from FFT simulation, hence his development, and his
knowledge of the *real* dispersion characteristics of his speakers, is
principally subjective. Hey guys, this sounds kinda cool, let's give
it a model number! You wonder why I consider the excellent VR4/4.5 to
be a fluke product?
What 'more complete' measurements? Notice that DAL use live and
recorded music listening comparisons *in addition* to *full* sets of
anechoic measurements in a true anechoic chamber. You are completely
out to lunch in suggesting that Alberts techniques even approach the
comprehensive cover of DAL, let alone exceed them.
>> Yes, Albert, we take "true accuracy" very seriously.
>
>And he takes in-room performance very seriously.
As do DAL, which probably explains John Dunlavys long history of
successful speakers with consistant design philosophy.
>> Lets all work together to make performance specs and advertising claims
>> more honest, complete and meanigful. If we do not, I fear we will lose
>> the long-term confidence and respect of the audiophile community.
>
>That's exactly what Albert tells me he wants, as long as the specs and
>claims are MEANINGFUL.
It's difficult to detect how meaningful Alberts claims are, through
all the off-the-wall claims and pseudoscience...............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
A S P Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
Arny Krüger
Tom Morley <tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<tmorley-0809...@user-37kbu4f.dialup.mindspring.com>...
> In article <5v09hf$2se$1...@news.wco.com>, cha...@WCO.COM (John J. Nunes)
wrote:
>
> General comments on Albert Von Schweikert's responce to John Dunlavy.
>
> I must say that what I find so irritating about Mr. Von Schweikert's
> writting is his missuse and missleading use of scientific and
> engineering terms. If he simply said that his speakers
> sound good, then that would be the end of it.
>
...
<Lots of really good stuff deleted.>
Well stated! Surely exceeds my humble efforts to the same end!
W0lph
In article <01bcba82$cfc15500$c172...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
> <3410C1...@netrunner.net>...
>
> > You have made very specific allegations here. This is most unfortunate
> > for you. A copy of your post is being sent to my attorney, Markcity &
> > Rothman.
> >
> > I appreciate your genuine concern over the legality of Sunshine Stereo,
> > its too bad you didn't have equal concern over abbrogating signed
> > agreements.
> >
> > The licenses will be produced in court, not the net. The net is NOT the
> > place to conduct this type of business. I would have thought that after
> > your stupid, unprofessional actions last winter that you would have
> > learned that by now.
> >
>
> As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls, instead.
No. Zip is responding in the legally correct method. Claims of letters and
what not on the net is asinine. And I have a letter from God to prove it!
Arny Krüger
John J. Nunes <cha...@WCO.COM> wrote in article
<5v09hf$2se$1...@news.wco.com>...
>
> In message <34134288...@c031.aone.net.au> - "Ian B. McLean"
> <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
>
> :>So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this
inlude
> :>a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
>
> Quote from the VR web site:
>
> *
>
> An omnidirectional source radiating a spherical sound pressure wave is
> comparable to an acoustic musical instrument such as a guitar, piano, or
> drum.
>
> *
A couple of weeks ago, I went to a wedding in a church with the organ with
pipes in the rear of the church, which is not uncommon in Catholic and
Lutheran churches around here. I was wondering how a VS speaker with "An
omnidirectional source radiating a spherical sound pressure wave..." would
relate to that... (NOT!)
Arny Krüger
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3413f13e...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>
> "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
> >I address this below, but when you come up with new ideas and designs,
> >you have to give them new names, or name them after yourself. I would
> >bet that Albert's grasp of the Fundamentals is on a par with your own,
> >with greater emphasis on current thinking.
>
> Of course, if you don't actually have any *new* ideas, you can still
> come up with new names, to make the advertising copy look good. I
> think I'll take that bet. In fact, having just trawled through Alberts
> Web page, and answered his post to me, I'll *definitely* take that
> bet!
What follows is Stu's impressive, lengthy, extensive and relevant
discussion of VS technology, Mr. VS's work experience, etc.
I have to ask Stu how he lined all these items about VS's work experience
up...
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
W0lph wrote:
> > > The licenses will be produced in court, not the net. The net is NOT the
> > > place to conduct this type of business. I would have thought that after
> > > your stupid, unprofessional actions last winter that you would have
> > > learned that by now.
> > >
> >
> > As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls, instead.
>
> No. Zip is responding in the legally correct method. Claims of letters and
> what not on the net is asinine. And I have a letter from God to prove it!
In fact, Wolph, Jim Sanders saw the licenses here. Since he is an
attorney, (practicing in California), we made a point of showing him all
the licenses and the state corporation papers. Ho posted that he saw
the licenses.
I'm waiting for the apology from Kersh.
Zip
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,
jsrt...@colorado.net
In article <19970905170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
david...@aol.com (DavidKersh) wrote:
>
> According to my letter from the City of Miami Shores, there is no way you
> are legally conducting business.
>
> Steve, if you can prove to this newsgroup by scanning in the copies of
> these three individual licenses you say you have, then I owe you a public
> apology. Then again, if you can't prove it, you're the liar.
>
And what earthly relevance does this have to anything on RAO?
Jeff Ryan
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gregory Glockner
$ca7f5260$f96d...@crc3.concentric.net>
"Arny Kruger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
>To go further, let's talk about the directional radiation pattern of a
>viola being played by a person.
Whoa! Friends don't let friends play viola!
(see http://www.mit.edu/people/jcb/jokes/viola.html).
--
Gregory Glockner, Ph.D. http://www.wco.com/~glockner/
415-474-0169 gloc...@wco.com
Lon Stowell
In article <W0lph-08099...@192.168.1.10>, W0lph <W0...@emi.net> wrote:
>
>No. Zip is responding in the legally correct method. Claims of letters and
>what not on the net is asinine. And I have a letter from God to prove it!
What, how blasphemous of you!! Are you not aware that here on RAO,
Arny the Krueger is much more powerful than God? If you don't
believe this, just ask him.
Lon Stowell
In article <8737386...@dejanews.com>, <jsrt...@colorado.net> wrote:
>
>And what earthly relevance does this have to anything on RAO?
About the same relevance as everything else written by
Krueger...none.
Lon Stowell
In article <01bcbc73$13f649a0$1771...@crc3.concentric.net>,
Arny Kr|ger <ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
[Nothing related to audio]
Jeff Adams
On 6 Sep 1997 23:08:26 GMT, "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>[snip a bunch of stuff about measurements, concluding with:]
>This will be important to me as soon as I move into an anechoic
>chamber. More important to me is how a speaker behaves in my
>real listening rooms
This is actually quite hilarious when you think about it. If you don't
make measurements in an environment where the room does not have a
profound effect, what then in the world is your reference? DAL's
speakers measure flat in the chamber to within +/- 2 dB... You've got
to have a reference! You'd rather that John measure his speakers in
HIS listening room? And just how would that translate to measurements
in YOUR room? Why bother to measure at all since it seems like it
would be hard to tell when a peak or dip in the response is due to the
speaker system under test and when it's actually an anomaly caused by
the room itself? Are you starting to get my point? You HAVE to have a
neutral reference. Yes, each real listening room will cause
fluctuations in the measurements, but at least you know what the
reference is. Anything else is a guessing game!
>John, not to belittle you, but it seems that you are still urging that a
>speakers only value is how it measures according to your LIMITED set
>of measurements (which, surprise, favor you). The more complete
>of measurements that Albert urges and real-world performance are
>needed to give a complete picture of a speaker's abilities.
It sounds to me like the single additional measurement that Albert
wants is some off-axis frequency response graphs. I'm sure John can
provide these, and I'm sure that we'll see they don't look as good as
Albert's (I would guess anyway - I think we've all pretty much agreed
that VSR has a wider sweet spot which I presume correlates to better
off-axis freq. response? Yes? No?). Any others?
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 415-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
==========================================================================
Arny Krüger
Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote in article
<5v1ia9$l...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
Nothing like a whine from a good vintage year for whines, Stowell '97.
SMcnutt46
>
>And what earthly relevance does this have to anything on RAO?
Same that most of the moronic crap on this board has... none.
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<341412...@netrunner.net>...
> W0lph wrote:
>
> > > > The licenses will be produced in court, not the net. The net is
NOT the
> > > > place to conduct this type of business. I would have thought that
after
> > > > your stupid, unprofessional actions last winter that you would have
> > > > learned that by now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As predicted, Zip refuses to go the candor route, and stonewalls,
instead.
> >
> > No. Zip is responding in the legally correct method. Claims of letters
and
> > what not on the net is asinine. And I have a letter from God to prove
it!
The fact is that you have finally produced business licenses dated 8/21/97,
which would not necessarily disprove Mr. Wald's claims, given that his
claims are based on a letter that quite easily could be dated before that
date.
Pete
Hi,
Oh no, I find myself nodding in agreement while reading Mr. Kruger and
Mr. Pinkerton's posts. I'll have to run outside to see if the sky is
falling and make a collect call to hell to see if the devil has
noticed any snow or ice :)
--
Pete
** Remove the first "p" in my E-Mail address if you wish to send E-Mail to me.**
Christian Artman
Gregory Glockner wrote:
What is wrong with the viola! I have my viola in the closet.
Chris
Marc Blank
Arny Kr=B8ger wrote:
> =
> Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote in article
> <5v1ia9$l...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
> >
> > In article <8737386...@dejanews.com>, <jsrt...@colorado.net> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > >And what earthly relevance does this have to anything on RAO?
> >
> > About the same relevance as everything else written by
> > Krueger...none.
> =
> Nothing like a whine from a good vintage year for whines, Stowell '97.
*required* Kreuger personal attack
- Marc
Jim Wald
>
> I'd normally just to watch the interchange between the two designers,
> but since you choose to join in, let's make it a party!
>
>
> >> Many of the explanations provided by Mr. Von Schweikert to explain how
> >> his (and other designer's) loudspeakers work and perform do not use
> >> words, terms and expressions universally used and understood by
> >> competent engineers and physicists. As a consequence, Albert might
> >>wish to polish his grasp of the fundamentals associated with network
> >>theory, array theory, radiation patterns, wave propagation phenomena,
> >>radiation properties of common types of musical instruments, etc.
> >
> >I address this below, but when you come up with new ideas and designs,
> >you have to give them new names, or name them after yourself. I would
> >bet that Albert's grasp of the Fundamentals is on a par with your own,
> >with greater emphasis on current thinking.
>
> Of course, if you don't actually have any *new* ideas, you can still
> come up with new names, to make the advertising copy look good. I
> think I'll take that bet. In fact, having just trawled through Alberts
> Web page, and answered his post to me, I'll *definitely* take that bet!
>
the fundamental than Albert, please list all your of relevant education,
your relevant jobs, your relevant accomplishments and your current job.
>
> >Since Albert designed raw drivers for a living, I think he has a pretty
> >good grasp of this.
>
> Albert spent two years of his very varied career with a massive
> organisation which produces drivers for Bose and Cerwin-Vega, among
> others. It is not clear what his duties were during this period.
>
He designed drivers. Good enough?
>
> >
> >Since Albert's speaker designs and crossover designs involve
> >original thinking, he wanted to express them in a descriptive way.
> >A lot of engineers name their original thinking after themselves,
> >which is a widely accepted practice for an original engineering
> >design, like the D'Appolito array and the Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.
>
> Look at
> the detailed design of the VR-4 and it's successors, and you will see
> them for what they are - a perfectly standard full-range driver system
> in a high-dispersion mimimum-baffle box with built-in subwoofer and
> super-tweeter. This is not new, the only addition to the basic
> sub/satellite arrangement Albert has produced is the rear-firing
> 'ambience' driver, again hardly a new discovery.
>
I guess you could call ANY full-range speaker as a "sub/satellite
arrangement ", using your criteria. The M/T module of the VR-4
certainly was NEVER designed to be used by itself as a satellite.
Are you suggesting cutting a VR-3 in half? are you saying that
all three-way or greater systems are sub/satellite arrangements".
> The fundamental goodness of using a single driver to cover the vital
> midrange is an old, old principle, the problem is finding a driver
> which is capable of doing this. Albert stretches the capacity of that
> driver to its limits by using a 4th order crossover, other similar
> designs, such as the B&W 801/2, use more conservative crossover points
> and slopes. Perhaps his 'pushing the envelope' does indeed lead to
> improved sound, but no way is this an original idea.
>
Of course the B&Ws don't use the same mid-range driver as the
VSRs, so assuming that the B&W uses a more conservative slope
that VSR is, naturally, speculation (do you know what the frequency
range of the raw B&W mid-range driver is?). Moreover, the VSR mid-range
is NOT an off-the-shelf part, having been modified for Albert (remember,
he DESIGNED drivers).
>
> >> And the many pseudo-scientific terms and flooby-dust explanations
> >> used by Albert to describe the supposed attributes of his loudspeaker
> >> designs are hardly worthy on one wanting to be known as an engineer
> >> or competent designer.
> >>
> >As I said, when you have original thinking and design original designs,
> >you have to call them something. DAL could hardly claim original
> >thinking to first order crossovers, nor to the D'Appolito array, and
> >even the felt around the tweeter (which was in prior art, by such
> >companies such as Bozak).
>
> Interesting then, that John Dunlavy was granted a US patent for the
> use of such acoustic damping materials.....................
>
He may have a patent, but I doubt that it would stand up to the
scrutiny of prior art.
> The difference here is that DAL is not *claiming* to use new 'wonder'
> techniques, Albert is.
>
Then why does John have a patent?
>
>
> > If I walk around a pair of DAL SC-IVs (and I have),
> >there is a remarkably narrow soundfield. You did design these things
> >to be played in a real listening room, didn't you, even though you only
> >have a usable listening area ONE SEAT WIDE?. Your speakers
> >sound Great in that ONE seating position, but you are out of luck
> >if you have any family or friends (my BIG problem with DAL speakers)
> >and if you don't push them too hard.
>
> This is a problem with many top-class speakers. I think you'll find
> that speakers which image exceptionally well do tend to suffer the
> 'giant headphone' effect. That's certainly been my experience - the
> sharper the image, the narrower the sweet spot. I suspect it's the
> acoustic analogue of depth of field in photography.
>
No, this isn't a "problem" with "many top-class speakers", it is a
poor design trade off.
It's not debatable if all you look at is waveshape. Apart from the
waveform and resulting INAUDIBLE delay, Albert's fourth order
crossover only serves to get around the problems inherent in the 1st
order crossover.
>
> >
> >John, it was Dick Heyser who personally showed Albert the complete
> >fallacy in believing that a "speaker that measured perfectly" was going
> >to be a speaker that sounded good, AND who personally pointed out
> >to Albert the lobing caused by the flaws in first order crossovers.
>
> That's why you use a d'Appolito array with odd-order crossovers, to
> reduce vertical lobing. Albert should know this, as his 'flagship'
> VR-10 *is* a d'Appolito array, but weirdly uses 4th order crossovers,
> classically wrong for this design.
>
The 4th order crossover is not a patch for a non-d'Appolito array, which
you are incorrectly assuming. It is a superior crossover. I understand
from Albert that others much more qualified than I will weigh in on this
subject. You may not have noticed, but the VR-10s are basically also
high-dispersion mimimum-baffle box, since the sides of the M/T center
section (or, for you, Stewart, should I say 2100 lb. "sub/satellite
arrangement ") are cut away.
>
> >He
> >told him that Albert, then, like you still today, was simply measuring
> >the wrong things and needed to measure more domains. Of course,
> >this was in the early '70s, and Albert did learn from this.
>
> Let's just look at that carefully worded resume then.
(then followed an amazing belittling of Albert's history and
accomplishments)
Stewart, now I can see you for the idiot you are. Exactly why you
would go to such lengths to belittle Albert's work history and
accomplishments, is beyond me. You make snide insinuations
and unfounded speculations and remarks to dismiss his credibility.
Albert certainly has far more credentials than other well noted
speaker designers, such as Dave Wilson, or is Dave Wilson, with
his A+, class-by-themselves X-1s (don't tell me, Stewart, Wilson
is ANOTHER fluke), the next object of your belittlement. Like I
said at the beginning, please list all your of relevant education,
your relevant jobs, your relevant accomplishments in the field of
applied audio design and your current job.
>
>
>
> > Like I said, your speakers sound GREAT in that ONE seating
> >position (again, my BIG problem with DAL speakers), and if you don't
> >push them too hard.
>
> It's a big problem with a large number of the worlds finest speakers,
> it implies a different set of trade-offs from the omni brigade, like
> the VR series. Which is preferable is a matter of personal choice, not
> absolute accuracy.
>
I don't think it is a "big problem", I think it is a fatal flaw. You would
be quite alone if you implied that the WIlson X-1 was NOT one of the
world's finest speakers, and you aren't going to tell me that the 3/4"
upward firing and rear firing tweeters, and it's higher order crossover
make it an omni speaker too, are you? A Dunlavy might be OK as a
studio monitor or for someone with no friends and family (I won't
speculate as to you), but a VSR speaker is MUCH better in a home
listening environment for both music and home theater.
>
> >
> >John, not to belittle you, but it seems that you are still urging that a
> >speakers only value is how it measures according to your LIMITED set
> >of measurements (which, surprise, favor you). The more complete
> >of measurements that Albert urges and real-world performance are
> >needed to give a complete picture of a speaker's abilities.
>
> What 'more complete' measurements? Notice that DAL use live and
> recorded music listening comparisons *in addition* to *full* sets of
> anechoic measurements in a true anechoic chamber. You are completely
> out to lunch in suggesting that Alberts techniques even approach the
> comprehensive cover of DAL, let alone exceed them.
>
More complete measure measures like off-axis frequency response
graphs would be nice. Or would you like to belittle the credentials
of Toole and Zwicker as well, since they seem to think that off-axis
frequency response is important.
Jim
Bill707526
My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT, and
were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy and
vonSchweikert. Now we find that Pinkerton has been reduced to making a
personal attack against vonSchweikert, taking away the focus from the
engineering aspects and turning this thread into shit.
Pinkerton, what are your credentials?
Have you engineered anything on the level of Dunlavy or vonSchweikert?
You are hiding behind a computer, like a sniper, and find it easy to
attack someone with far greater credentials than your own. If you don't
like the design of vonSchweikert, fine. However, others in this newsgroup
realize that vonSchweikert has credentials or he wouldn't be where he is
today. Who are you? Just another asshole without a life. Dunlavy must be
writing in horror that a cheap jerk like you would choose to defend him. He
doesn't need you help, we're sure. Keep your comments to engineering, and
let the designers have their say. You're a nobody.
William Morris
Benjamin Strath
Jim Wald
Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
<34325e66....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
> On 6 Sep 1997 23:08:26 GMT, "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >[snip a bunch of stuff about measurements, concluding with:]
> >This will be important to me as soon as I move into an anechoic
> >chamber. More important to me is how a speaker behaves in my
> >real listening rooms
>
> This is actually quite hilarious when you think about it. If you don't
> make measurements in an environment where the room does not have a
> profound effect, what then in the world is your reference? DAL's
> speakers measure flat in the chamber to within +/- 2 dB... You've got
> to have a reference!
The only problem here, Jeff, is that the VSR speakers are NOTED
for being uncommonly flat from 20Hz to 20kHz. Read ANY review
of VSR speakers. My point WAS NOT that a speaker should not
be flat, it was that this, IN AND OF ITSELF, is NOT enough. See below
.
>
> >John, not to belittle you, but it seems that you are still urging that a
> >speakers only value is how it measures according to your LIMITED set
> >of measurements (which, surprise, favor you). The more complete
> >of measurements that Albert urges and real-world performance are
> >needed to give a complete picture of a speaker's abilities.
>
> It sounds to me like the single additional measurement that Albert
> wants is some off-axis frequency response graphs. I'm sure John can
> provide these, and I'm sure that we'll see they don't look as good as
> Albert's (I would guess anyway - I think we've all pretty much agreed
> that VSR has a wider sweet spot which I presume correlates to better
> off-axis freq. response? Yes? No?). Any others?
>
Well, yes, some off-axis frequency response graphs would be nice,
as according to not only Albert, but Toole and Zwicker and others
also have felt that the off-axis frequency response is crucial to proper
sound reproduction, unless you want a one-person giant headphone.
Jim
> ======CORRECT EMAIL:
Stewart Pinkerton
"Ian B. McLean" <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
>John Nunes wrote:
>
>So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this inlude
>a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
I think you'll find that the root of the problem is not the
questionable directionality of a concert grand or the mental health of
Arny and John, but Albert von Schweikerts claim that his VR range of
speakers produce "Acoustic Inverse Replication" of the microphone
soundfield. Who do think is living in a 'subjective twilight' here? If
you haven't read Albert's 'white paper' on his web site, I suggest you
go there urgently. If you have, how can you support his statements on
soundfield recreation?
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote in article
<341473...@eidetic.com>...
*required* Kreuger personal attack
Cheek turned. I know you will be back for another swat...
Arny Krüger
Bill707526 <bill7...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970909021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT,
and
> were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy
and
> vonSchweikert. Now we find that Pinkerton has been reduced to making a
> personal attack against vonSchweikert, taking away the focus from the
> engineering aspects and turning this thread into shit.
That is an opinion you get to have and express, but I think that you really
ought to look at Stu's post and learn what you can from it.
Stu't post seems factual, however, I know too little to vouch for its
accuracy. It has the ring of truth. The only people who claim Stu is a
pathological liar around here, are in my opinion pathological liars, for
what that is worth!
There is a school of thought that says that a correct recitation of
relevant facts about an individual can never be a personal attack.
VonSchweikert has made public statements about his resume, so his resume
becomes relevant.
> Pinkerton, what are your credentials?
He seems to know something. Credentials don't mean squat all by themselves.
A more relevant question that students like you should learn to ask is:
> Pinkerton, what are your sources?
> Have you engineered anything on the level of Dunlavy or vonSchweikert?
> You are hiding behind a computer, like a sniper, and find it easy to
> attack someone with far greater credentials than your own.
This would appear to be one of those personal attacks that you were just
decrying. Perhaps you could figure out some way to get to more truth
without engaging in hypocracy?
> If you don't
> like the design of vonSchweikert, fine. However, others in this newsgroup
> realize that vonSchweikert has credentials or he wouldn't be where he is
> today.
This is a theory that you need to disabuse yourself of right away.
Credentials help you get someplace in life but they are not the only way.
The alternative is luck and hard work and that works for some people, too.
Did Edison graduate from MIT? Did Ford have relevant educational
credentials? There are tons of examples of folks with zero, none, nichts
credentials who have advanced technology greatly. Litmus tests are for the
lab, not life! You will find that some few years after you graduate, people
don't judge you by where you graduated, but what you have done.
> Who are you? Just another asshole without a life.
I think that you have purpounded your hypocracy.
> Dunlavy must be
> writing in horror that a cheap jerk...
I think that you have purpounded your hypocracy, again. If a recitation of
personal facts is out of order, how out of order are you?
> ...like you would choose to defend him. He
> doesn't need you help, we're sure. Keep your comments to engineering, and
> let the designers have their say. You're a nobody.
> William Morris
> Benjamin Strath
>
Two pompus youth, so full of themselves they are turning inside out, and
all they have for us to see is their feces! ;-( ;-(.
Ian B. McLean
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Two pompus youth, so full of themselves they are turning inside out, and
> all they have for us to see is their feces! ;-( ;-(.
For those of you that have read the full, unexpurgated reply to two engineering
students, wherein AK tells them off for becoming personal, he ends with THIS!
Still, I suppose, it merely reflects his life - full of shit - which HE
displays to us every day!
Ian Mclean
bfeng
In article <19970909021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bill7...@aol.com says...
>
>My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT,
and
>were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy
and
>vonSchweikert. Now we find that Pinkerton has been reduced to making a
>personal attack against vonSchweikert, taking away the focus from the
>engineering aspects and turning this thread into shit.
Bill, Ben,
Beware of developing a holier-than-thou attitude because you're
engineering students at MIT. It's one of the best schools in the
world, but that doesn't mean any particular one or two of its
students are any better than someone from a local community college.
From one that has spent 8 years of graduate (thru doctoral level)
EE research with many MIT alum - my advice is not to assume you're
going to be hot shit without lots of hard work and humility. Stew.
maybe getting a bit personal, but for the most part his criticism of
Albert's white paper, advertising gab, and recent post are right on
the money. When you've had a few years of research and applications
experience in analysis/perception/synthesis of 3-D sound fields and
musical acoustics, you'll realize why some of us are taking shots at
Albert's literature/posts. I don't think we're criticising his
loudspeakers so much as we are his public explanations for what they
do.
John Feng
Ford Motor Company
Tom Morley
In article <19970909021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bill7...@aol.com (Bill707526) wrote:
> My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT, and
> were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy and
> vonSchweikert....[cut]
> Pinkerton, what are your credentials?
> Have you engineered anything on the level of Dunlavy or vonSchweikert?
With much the writings of AVS so increadibly wrong or nonsensical -- on
basic scientific points -- a smattering of elementry science will
suffice to refute AVS's arguments. "Acoustic Inverse Replication" indeed!
Tom Morley | My God! What does sound have
mor...@math.gatech.edu | to do with music?
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |-- George Ives to Charles Ives,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | as reported by Charles Ives.
Tom Morley
Stewart Pinkerton remarks:
> I think you'll find that the root of the problem is not the
> questionable directionality of a concert grand or the mental health of
> Arny and John, but Albert von Schweikerts claim that his VR range of
> speakers produce "Acoustic Inverse Replication" of the microphone
> soundfield.
Absolutely."Acoustic Inverse Replication" makes no sense at all.
Coupled with "Our rear ambience driver is not designed to bounce
sound off the rear wall" (AVS, as posted by JW), the whole concept
-- as explained in pseudo-scientific terms by AVS-- violates
basic causality.
Omni (or near omni) vs. a very directional speaker system is
an interesting question, but AVS's explainations are simply wrong
or nonsensical.
Listening to Elgar's Cello Concerto -- The Recording --
Stewart knows which one,
Ian B. McLean
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> "Ian B. McLean" <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
>
> >John Nunes wrote:
> >
> >So, somehow John Nunes takes a claim on a PIANO, and extends this inlude
> >a PIPE ORGAN. Is he taking the same medication as AK?
>
> I think you'll find that the root of the problem is not the
> questionable directionality of a concert grand or the mental health of
> Arny and John, but Albert von Schweikerts claim that his VR range of
> speakers produce "Acoustic Inverse Replication" of the microphone
> soundfield. Who do think is living in a 'subjective twilight' here? If
> you haven't read Albert's 'white paper' on his web site, I suggest you
> go there urgently. If you have, how can you support his statements on
> soundfield recreation?
Stewart,
I was highlighting the indefensible (in terms of sloppy logic or intellectual
argument) in this thread. In addition, I have had enough of just lurking and
watching the bully boys continue on and, and on, and on......
JN could just as easily stated that which you have, as being the "root of the
problem", but he didn't and "AIR" isn't.
The "problem" in the progress of the thread, was for JN to incompetently
compare a piano with a pipe organ in his attempt to damn, and abuse, JW, is,
to me, just that, dishonest and ugly. As JW pointed out in his follow-up, he
had not qualified his statement adequately. I have no argument with that
however, JW's qualification was neither a retraction or dishonest.
For JN to then come back with an even sloppier attempt at the damnation of
JW, and to attempt a rebuttal of my criticism by implying that the
directionality of musical instruments could not be portrayed by a speaker
that claimed, or was omni-directional, was once again illogical and
dishonest. Up until you entered this thread, I had decided that if the
arguments were going to continued on in dishonesty, or, at best, lazy
thinking, then I had finished with it.
However, since you entered this and I have respect for the great majority of
your scribblings in this forum, I'm back. The answer to your question? Yes, I
have read the VSR white paper. Yes, I think that the claims are over hyped
(but not dishonest) as re-creating the mike's sound field can only ever be an
approximation. For a start, how many different sound fields are there? What
about multi miked recordings?
However, the reality in all of this is that what delivers, in my experience,
the best musical outcome (i.e. realism) is the speaker with the BEST
approximations. So, far, after experience with many high end speakers*, the
VSR 4 and 4.5's do it the best that I've yet experienced at these price
points within the system constraints that I demand.
My reading of the VSR white paper is that the rear firing tweeter is not
simply an out of phase, or in phase rear firing tweeter, but an attempt to
complete a pseudo omni directional completion of a sound field that crudely
may approximate the complete mike sound field. So, the specificity of the
claims are too much IMHO, but the audible result, for me, has a degree of
realism that no other speakers have delivered in my home.
As to your final question - no I don't wholeheartedly "support" the VSR
statements as they stand - they are too specific. Someone in marketing needs
a brick over the head.
Ian McLean
*
Owned:
Audiospheres (in the 1970's we had the pseudo Gallo down under albeit in
concrete sheres); Snell A(3's I think); Ohm Walsh F; Yamaha NS-1000; B&W801;
Maggie 3a; Apogee Duetta Sigs; ATC SCM100; Apogee Mini Grands; Alon IV;
Velodyne ULD-18; Ariel 10T; REL s/w; ML Monoliths; Infinity RS1b's.
Spent good time with;
Avalon Ascent; Avalon Avatar; B&W 800 (great); Artemis EOS; Rockport Sysigy;
Sonus Faber Guerneris.
Admired;
Wilson 5.1's.
Chevron Law
I think that you should listen a little closer to what Stuart has to say.
Stuart rarely attacks an individual if at all unless he is attacked.
Stuart seems to be quite educated in the audio field be it with credentials
or not.
Regards,
Mitch
--
My opinions are my own. Chevron's in the oil and gas business, not Hi-Fi
or whatever I find interesting.
mi...@chevronnospam.com
remove nospam to reply
remove nospam to reply
Bill707526 <bill7...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970909021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT,
and
> were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy
and
> vonSchweikert. Now we find that Pinkerton has been reduced to making a
> personal attack against vonSchweikert, taking away the focus from the
> engineering aspects and turning this thread into shit.
> Pinkerton, what are your credentials?
> Have you engineered anything on the level of Dunlavy or vonSchweikert?
> You are hiding behind a computer, like a sniper, and find it easy to
> attack someone with far greater credentials than your own. If you don't
> like the design of vonSchweikert, fine. However, others in this newsgroup
> realize that vonSchweikert has credentials or he wouldn't be where he is
> today. Who are you? Just another asshole without a life. Dunlavy must be
> writing in horror that a cheap jerk like you would choose to defend him.
AWRigby
From: "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com>:
<<Well, yes, some off-axis frequency response graphs would be nice,
as...off-axis frequency response is crucial to proper
sound reproduction...>>
You want 'em? We got 'em. (In fact, our anechoic measurements indicate
that a certain DAL product has a better 30 degree off axis response than
the ON AXIS response of another manufacturer's comparable priced product.)
I could send these graphs to you if you are really interested Jim.
Sincerely,
Andrew Rigby
DAL
Stewart Pinkerton
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
><3413f13e...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>>
>> "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> writes:
>>
>> >I address this below, but when you come up with new ideas and designs,
>> >you have to give them new names, or name them after yourself. I would
>> >bet that Albert's grasp of the Fundamentals is on a par with your own,
>> >with greater emphasis on current thinking.
>>
>> Of course, if you don't actually have any *new* ideas, you can still
>> come up with new names, to make the advertising copy look good. I
>> think I'll take that bet. In fact, having just trawled through Alberts
>> Web page, and answered his post to me, I'll *definitely* take that
>> bet!
>
>What follows is Stu's impressive, lengthy, extensive and relevant
>discussion of VS technology, Mr. VS's work experience, etc.
>
>I have to ask Stu how he lined all these items about VS's work experience
>up...
Jim Wald posted a resume from an interview with AvS in Positive
Feedback, using it to suggest that I could not possibly challenge
anything said by such an 'authority', and there's also a very similar
resume on the VSR website. Regard these as self-promotional documents,
as with any resume, read carefully what is actually said as opposed to
what is implied, read between the lines a little, and there you have
it!
Tom Morley
In article <34154994...@c031.aone.net.au>,
ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au wrote:
> My reading of the VSR white paper is that the rear firing tweeter is not
> simply an out of phase, or in phase rear firing tweeter, but an attempt to
> complete a pseudo omni directional completion of a sound field that crudely
> may approximate the complete mike sound field. So, the specificity of the
> claims are too much IMHO, but the audible result, for me, has a degree of
> realism that no other speakers have delivered in my home.
These claims - "pseudo omni directional completion of a sound field", are
in fact complete and utter nonsense. They show (by AVS) a now typical
behavior -- full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. One
wonders whether or not AVS belives his own hype. If AVS's
writings are in earnest, then one has to wonder at his grasp
of elementary science and engineering. If, one the other hand,
he doesn't belive his own hype, then
his hype is pseudo-science, with intent to mislead.
Tom Morley
In article <01bcbd50$056d1700$505d...@jimwa2.dns.microsoft.com>, "Jim
Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <341574b9...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
> Stewart, as you stated below, you took the bet that your grasp of the
> fundamentals was better than Albert's. Fine. And as stated below,
> prove it with your credentials and accomplishments. Otherwise,
> you have nothing to contribute, since you are weaseling out of the
> bet you took.
>
> Jim
I'm sure Stewart can speak for himself, but the problem with AVS's hype
is not subtle or complicated -- no Hilbert transforms* (see footnote)
or rocket science
required. A simple grasp of fundamental physics is all that is required
to conclude that AVS's hype is nonsense.
-----
*Footnote --
AVS once claimed (in RAHE, through a third party, of course) that I
was ignorant, because I did not understand Hilbert transforms. He
got the wrong person. Not only were Hilbert transforms irrelevent
to the question at hand, but I teach undergraduate and graduate
courses on that stuff.
Listening to Dave Mathews,
Dr. T. D. Morley | My God! What does sound have
Arny Krüger
Ian B. McLean <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> wrote in article
<34154AC8...@c031.aone.net.au>...
Actually, I've gotten as much private email congratulating me for that
little piece as anything I've writtten lately. Far from making my life
fecal, it has brightened my day!
Jim Wald
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<341574b9...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
Stewart, as you stated below, you took the bet that your grasp of the
fundamentals was better than Albert's. Fine. And as stated below,
prove it with your credentials and accomplishments. Otherwise,
you have nothing to contribute, since you are weaseling out of the
bet you took.
Jim
> Of course, if you don't actually have any *new* ideas, you can still
> come up with new names, to make the advertising copy look good. I
> think I'll take that bet. In fact, having just trawled through Alberts
> Web page, and answered his post to me, I'll *definitely* take that bet!
>
Dana
Tom Morley wrote:
> A simple grasp of fundamental physics is all that is required
> to conclude that AVS's hype is nonsense.
I currently own a pair of VR-4s that I purchased used. I became
aware of them via all of the accolades being heaped upon them
in Usenet and on-line audio review webpages. After reading dozens
of pro-VSR posts, I became interested in hearing them. Shortly
after that, the VSR webpage came up and I popped in to learn more.
It was there that I came across the VR-4 "whitepaper." After
reading it, I must admit that I became considerably less
enthusiastic about the speakers. The terminology was vague and
very difficult to understand in a meaningful way. And it
was rife with terms that I would characterize as hype.
It wasn't until I had a good chance to listen to them that I
reconsidered my position towards them. Thus to me, the performance
had to overcome the "hype," in order to make the sale.
At this point I am quite happy with my VR-4s and have no intentions
of upgrading in the foreseeable future. On a good recording there
are times when I close my eyes and it seems like the performers
are there with me. Are there better speakers, yes, absolutely.
But nothing that I've heard that wouldn't require me to invest
another $3-4K (plus whatever I was able to sell the VR-4s for),
and I'm not interested in dropping that sum of money on my system.
So despite my negative impression of the "whitepaper," despite
the VR-4s being larger than I would like, and despite not really
being very impressed by their looks (I have the standard oak
endcaps), I'm a very happy camper. In the end, my primary
goal is a great sounding system and the VR-4s meet that goal.
So I can't say I'm in disagreement with Tom's opinion. As a
VR-4 owner, I would love to see the "whitepaper" rewritten in
a more classic fashion. As it stands, I am reluctant to
recommend it (the whitepaper) to friends, but am more than
willing to demo my system to people.
Dana
Arny Krüger
Jim Wald <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
<01bcbd50$056d1700$505d...@jimwa2.dns.microsoft.com>...
>
> Stewart, as you stated below, you took the bet that your grasp of the
> fundamentals was better than Albert's. Fine. And as stated below,
> prove it with your credentials and accomplishments. Otherwise,
> you have nothing to contribute, since you are weaseling out of the
> bet you took.
GMAB!
What is not at stake here is Albert's or Stu's grasp of any technical
fundamentals but the simple question as to whether certain documents on the
VS web site are flawed.
What you have here is a whole chorus of folks ranging from the sublime (TM)
to the knowlegable (SP, JN) to the rediculous (AK), all of whom are at
least smart enough to smell fecal air when pushed under their noses, and
utter the word when they have a mouth full of it. The fact is that those
documents that we are ripping to shreds are embarassments to anybody who
knows what a good technical/sales description of a speaker looks like.
And let me reiterate that you don't have to wander all over the world
looking for Web sites that strike a nice balance between technical and
sales orientation - they decidedly exist, and if you are having a problem
finding one, there is always NHT.
It has been long known that you don't have to be a conductor, composer,
artist, or writer to be an effective critic. Sometimes it helps, but when
the hype is stacked to a certain depth, the trick is not finding it, it's
stepping over it!
Arny Krüger
Ian B. McLean <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> wrote in article
>
> I was highlighting the indefensible (in terms of sloppy logic or
intellectual
> argument) in this thread.
This indefensibility exists only in your mind. What is indefensible is the
claim that a speaker can duplicate the directivity every musical instrument
that plays through it - which seems the gist of some of the VS egregious
hype. It really does not matter which instrument you pick - piano, organ,
cello, electric guitar, - they are all somewhat directional as typically
used, and they are all at least somewhat different. Then there are the Hi
Hat cymbals that are radially pretty omni...
> The "problem" in the progress of the thread, was for JN to incompetently
> compare a piano with a pipe organ in his attempt to damn, and abuse,
There is no damning or abusing going on here - just discussion of some
logic problems with a hyped up piece of literature from a Web site. For the
record let me say that I think that the properties of the VS speaker line
is a completely different issue than the folderol on their web site. I have
no agenda of damning or abusing the speakers themselves - let them stand on
their technical merits as componnents aside from the aspersions cast by the
pathetic documents on the VS web site.
John J. Nunes
In message <34154994...@c031.aone.net.au> - "Ian B. McLean"
<ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
:>
:>The "problem" in the progress of the thread, was for JN to incompetently
:>compare a piano with a pipe organ in his attempt to damn, and abuse, JW, is,
:>to me, just that, dishonest and ugly.
This is my last post to you.
You didn't read my post(s) carefully. If you did, you did not
understand them.
Do you claim that a pipe organ ALWAYS radiates from many sources that
are 'wide and deep'? How about <one note with one stop, i.e. ONE PIPE>?
I was talking about voicing, and that's where working with one note
(pipe) is done most of the time, AND THE RADIATION PATTERNS HEARD WHEN
DOING SO, CONTRADICT THE CLAIMS BEING MADE BY VS. The only goal of my
post was to show this from my work experience. Jim Wald insisting
otherwise in the thread was the reason for my saying 'eat it', in
frustration.
I apologize to Jim Wald.
This thread has now gone beyond this topic, and I will just watch (or
less) , especially now that Mr. McLean has joined in the fray.
It is worth mentioning that Mr. McLean was BANNED (set to 'NO POST') on
the PIPORG-L (Pipe Organs and Related Topics) mailing list by the list
owners, for many, repeated and offensive ad-hominum attacks on
subscribers.
- John Nunes
Arny Krüger
Dana <dbu...@doit.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<3415C4...@doit.wisc.edu>...
>
> So I can't say I'm in disagreement with Tom's opinion. As a
> VR-4 owner, I would love to see the "whitepaper" rewritten in
> a more classic fashion. As it stands, I am reluctant to
> recommend it (the whitepaper) to friends, but am more than
> willing to demo my system to people.
>
This is exactly where I am at W/R/T the whitepaper, except I obviously
don't own a pair of VS's. I think that if the VS folks realized what an
embarassment their white paper is to the Audio community, they would simply
fix it. They have a story to tell and I think it would remain intereresting
or increase in interest if it were written so that it could seriously be
read by people with a technical background.
Ian B. McLean
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Two pompus youth, so full of themselves they are turning inside out,
> and all they have for us to see is their feces! ;-( ;-(.
>
>
> Actually, I've gotten as much private email congratulating me for that
>
> little piece as anything I've writtten lately. Far from making my life
>
> fecal, it has brightened my day!
Of course!
Stewart Pinkerton
bill7...@aol.com (Bill707526) writes:
>My friend and I are first year electrical engineering students at MIT, and
>were interested in the discussion of two different theories by Dunlavy and
>vonSchweikert. Now we find that Pinkerton has been reduced to making a
>personal attack against vonSchweikert, taking away the focus from the
>engineering aspects and turning this thread into shit.
What personal attack? Jim Wald posted a set of credentials for AvS,
demanding to know how I could possibly say anything against such an
'authority'. I took at look at this information, and at the
self-promotional resume on the VSR website, and reposted a slightly
different spin on the same resume. None of this affects any of the
technical content of this thread. What have you to say about my
technical points concerning the VSR design philosophy?
>Pinkerton, what are your credentials?
Arguably, better than Albert's, but this is irrelevant to the debate.
What counts is the *content* of the various posts, not who's making
them. R.a.o is like any other peer-reviewed journal, except that
*anyone* gets to comment, whether usefully or not. By an interesting
coincidence, Albert asked me the same question by e-mail, which I
answered fully. He seems to be tied up in this 'voice of authority'
fallacy, too.
>Have you engineered anything on the level of Dunlavy or vonSchweikert?
Certainly, with Hughes Aircraft Company and with Marconi Space and
Defence, although not a loudspeaker, since that's not what I do for a
living. I could easily build a VR-6 equivalent, but a SC-V would be a
much harder task. Note that this isn't a criticism of either speaker,
simply an observation of the fact that some design solutions are
easier to implement than others. The VR-4 and its descendants are
basically omni-directional sub/satellite systems, quite simple to
design, with a little final tuning of the crossover to set the
rear-firing ambience driver up with the help of some FFT tools, you
don't even need an anechoic chamber (handy, since VSR don't have one).
The critical, but far from novel, feature of Alberts designs is the
use of a single driver, in a minimum-baffle enclosure, to cover an
extremely large part of the audio spectrum, removing at a stroke most
of the coherence problems which plague the more conservative
multi-driver designs (especially DAL, with their 1st-order
crossovers). The rear-firing driver helps to compensate for the polar
response narrowing at the top of the mid drivers range, while the
4th-order crossover minimises intermodulation and excursion problems,
and allows that little driver to be used much closer to the edges of
its performance envelope than would be possible with conventional
lower order filters.
>You are hiding behind a computer, like a sniper, and find it easy to
>attack someone with far greater credentials than your own.
The computer is simply a means of communication, I never hide. I'll be
cruising around the London Hi-Fi Show this Sunday if anyone wants the
benefit of my opinion face to face, and I also put my telephone/fax
number at the end of every post, unlike some of the more paranoid
contributors. Your argument falls at the first fence. I'm not
attacking Albert, I'm dismantling his technobabble and pseudoscience.
> If you don't
>like the design of vonSchweikert, fine. However, others in this newsgroup
>realize that vonSchweikert has credentials or he wouldn't be where he is
>today. Who are you? Just another asshole without a life. Dunlavy must be
>writing in horror that a cheap jerk like you would choose to defend him. He
>doesn't need you help, we're sure.
I think you'll find John doesn't see it that way, but whatever.
Actually, I *do* favour the basics of Alberts designs over the DAL
approach on a personal basis, but I certainly don't favour all the
gobbledegook and pseudoscience he uses to describe his products.
Regarding credentials, remember that Alberts reputation really rests
on a single model, the VR-4. His earlier work was favoured by a few in
the audiophile press, but bombed in the real test, the marketplace.
Time will tell if the VR-4 is a 'one-hit wonder', or if the VR-6 and
VR-8 are able to compete in the marketplace at $12,000 and $17,500.
> Keep your comments to engineering, and
>let the designers have their say. You're a nobody.
>William Morris
>Benjamin Strath
This is rec.audio.*opinion*, and anybody gets a say, even 1st year EE
students....................
Did you actually have anything to say about my criticisms of Alberts
design theories, or are you just having a personal moan? I *am* a
designer, but I design using engineering techniques based on
scientific principles, which don't need the invention of new
'technobabble' terminology to describe well-known techniques.
Arny Krüger
Ian B. McLean <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> wrote in article
<34163603...@c031.aone.net.au>...
>>>Still, I suppose, it merely reflects his life - full of shit - which HE
>>>displays to us every day!
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I've gotten as much private email congratulating me for that
>> little piece as anything I've writtten lately. Far from making my life
>> fecal, it has brightened my day!
> Of course!
And now you have seemingly contradicted yourself. Politics and agendas are
like that.
Why not sit back, take a deep breath, and find something related to Audio
to talk about?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Johnny Y Boey wrote:
> The VR4 may be simple, but he came out with the idea first!! And you
> have yet to address how you would approach designing a very dead woofer
> cabinet.
What about Mirage? What about CM Labs - they did this 20 years ago?
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,
Arny Krüger
>
> Jim Wald posted a set of credentials for AvS...
> I took at look at this information, and at the
> self-promotional resume on the VSR website, and reposted a slightly
> different spin on the same resume.
Thanks for answering my question about the source of the information you
posted. It points out that a common set of facts can be spun any number of
ways. Without reference to the original facts (in this case being AVS's
life as seen by the proverbial fly on the wall), it's spin one way or the
other, but it's spin. Obviously AVS wants the most favorable possible spin,
but as you show, the same facts fit alternative scenarios that are just as
credible, when taken at face value.
>The VR-4 and its descendants are
>basically omni-directional sub/satellite systems, quite simple to
>design, with a little final tuning of the crossover to set the
>rear-firing ambience driver up with the help of some FFT tools, you
>don't even need an anechoic chamber (handy, since VSR don't have one).
You are not the first person who has speculated on this aspect of the AVS
desgns in this light. ;-)
>The critical, but far from novel, feature of Alberts designs is the
>use of a single driver, in a minimum-baffle enclosure, to cover an
>extremely large part of the audio spectrum, removing at a stroke most
>of the coherence problems which plague the more conservative
>multi-driver designs (especially DAL, with their 1st-order
>crossovers). The rear-firing driver helps to compensate for the polar
>response narrowing at the top of the mid drivers range, while the
>4th-order crossover minimises intermodulation and excursion problems,
>and allows that little driver to be used much closer to the edges of
>its performance envelope than would be possible with conventional
>lower order filters.
Nicely stated. Now, if AVS could use that as an outline and come up with a
face-value understandable explanation of his products...
>I design using engineering techniques based on scientific principles,
which don't
> need the invention of new 'technobabble' terminology to describe
well-known
> techniques.
Exactly.
Gregory Glockner
Dana <dbu...@doit.wisc.edu> writes:
>Tom Morley wrote:
>> A simple grasp of fundamental physics is all that is required
>> to conclude that AVS's hype is nonsense.
>So despite my negative impression of the "whitepaper," despite
>the VR-4s being larger than I would like, and despite not really
>being very impressed by their looks (I have the standard oak
>endcaps), I'm a very happy camper. In the end, my primary
>goal is a great sounding system and the VR-4s meet that goal.
Hear, hear! VR-4's are wonderful speakers and an excellent value.
However, AVS has probably fallen prey to a desire to protect his
designs. If he describes his design in normal language, then people
may catch on and copy it. So by creating marketing babble, he can
sound more original. (Here, the Bose analogy holds well, since they
surround their products by oodles of technobabble).
AFAIK, the VR-4's have a conventional solid cabinet for the bass/mid,
and an open enclosure similar to Vandys for the mid/tweeter. The M/T
module has a "rear firing" tweeter, which is not dissimilar from
bipolar designs (the original thread was about VR-4's vs. Definitives,
which are another bipolar speaker). Nothing here seems all that
radical. It's just that the VR-4's do it better than comparable
speakers *at that price point*.
And as for the bass, here's my $0.02: the VR-4's are very very clean.
When I was completely blown away was listening to the 5th mvt of
Holst's "Planets" with the Montreal Symphony/Dutoit on London (Decca,
for our European friends). Listen to the rumbles of the pipe organ
towards the end of the track. My B&W CDM-1's cannot reproduce those
rumbles, but my parents' VR-4's make this fantastic, other-worldly
rumble. It frightened my parents' dog! It's not as punchy or as loud
as some people like. The bass on the VR-4's won't rattle your
furniture. But it is very present, and very clean.
Of course, this is MHO. YMMV.
--
Gregory Glockner, Ph.D. http://www.wco.com/~glockner/
415-474-0169 gloc...@wco.com
Johnny Y Boey
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) wrote:
>
> Johnny Y Boey wrote:
>
> > The VR4 may be simple, but he came out with the idea first!! And you
> > have yet to address how you would approach designing a very dead woofer
> > cabinet.
>
> What about Mirage? What about CM Labs - they did this 20 years ago?
Not just the rear tweeter, I'm talking about the whole she-bang.
JB
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Kr經er wrote:
>
> Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote in article
> <341473...@eidetic.com>...
>
> *required* Kreuger personal attack
>
> Cheek turned. I know you will be back for another swat...
Take this to alt.spanking
Brian
Johnny Y Boey
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
The VR-4 and its descendants are
> basically omni-directional sub/satellite systems, quite simple to
> design, with a little final tuning of the crossover to set the
> rear-firing ambience driver up with the help of some FFT tools, you
> don't even need an anechoic chamber (handy, since VSR don't have one).
> The critical, but far from novel, feature of Alberts designs is the
> use of a single driver, in a minimum-baffle enclosure, to cover an
> extremely large part of the audio spectrum, removing at a stroke most
> of the coherence problems which plague the more conservative
> multi-driver designs (especially DAL, with their 1st-order
> crossovers). The rear-firing driver helps to compensate for the polar
> response narrowing at the top of the mid drivers range, while the
> 4th-order crossover minimises intermodulation and excursion problems,
> and allows that little driver to be used much closer to the edges of
> its performance envelope than would be possible with conventional
> lower order filters.
>
The VR4 may be simple, but he came out with the idea first!! And you
have yet to address how you would approach designing a very dead woofer
cabinet.
JB
Stewart Pinkerton
"Ian B. McLean" <ian.m...@c031.aone.net.au> writes:
>However, since you entered this and I have respect for the great majority of
>your scribblings in this forum, I'm back. The answer to your question? Yes, I
>have read the VSR white paper. Yes, I think that the claims are over hyped
>(but not dishonest) as re-creating the mike's sound field can only ever be an
>approximation. For a start, how many different sound fields are there? What
>about multi miked recordings?
Eggzakly!
>However, the reality in all of this is that what delivers, in my experience,
>the best musical outcome (i.e. realism) is the speaker with the BEST
>approximations. So, far, after experience with many high end speakers*, the
>VSR 4 and 4.5's do it the best that I've yet experienced at these price
>points within the system constraints that I demand.
Oh sure, I've always been clear that I regard the VR-4 as an excellent
alternative to such as the B&W 802 or M-L SL3 in that critical price
bracket, where *really* good speakers are beginning to appear.
>My reading of the VSR white paper is that the rear firing tweeter is not
>simply an out of phase, or in phase rear firing tweeter, but an attempt to
>complete a pseudo omni directional completion of a sound field that crudely
>may approximate the complete mike sound field. So, the specificity of the
>claims are too much IMHO, but the audible result, for me, has a degree of
>realism that no other speakers have delivered in my home.
Agreed, it's an 'ambience' filler like in the Wilson X-1 etc, intended
to fill in the horizontal polar response to give an essentially
omni-directional characteristic. Seems to work pretty well, despite
all the 'Global Axis Integration Network' hype! :-)
>As to your final question - no I don't wholeheartedly "support" the VSR
>statements as they stand - they are too specific. Someone in marketing needs
>a brick over the head.
It's a *very* small company...................
>Owned:
>Audiospheres (in the 1970's we had the pseudo Gallo down under albeit in
>concrete sheres); Snell A(3's I think); Ohm Walsh F; Yamaha NS-1000; B&W801;
>Maggie 3a; Apogee Duetta Sigs; ATC SCM100; Apogee Mini Grands; Alon IV;
>Velodyne ULD-18; Ariel 10T; REL s/w; ML Monoliths; Infinity RS1b's.
Interesting, I use Duetta Sigs, which replaced Maggies which replaced
NS-1000Ms which replaced B&W DM2s. I can't imagine why you sold the
SCM100s! Seems like we have not dissimilar tastes, but you obviously
suffer from a much more severe case of upgrade fever!
>Spent good time with;
>Avalon Ascent; Avalon Avatar; B&W 800 (great); Artemis EOS; Rockport Sysigy;
>Sonus Faber Guerneris.
Aren't the Guarneris *fabulous* on voice? I like the Avalon Radian
too.
DavidKersh
Greetings from VR.
With all the attention paid of late about VR and the description of our
products, let me clarify some of your thinking. It has been highly
amusing to read your different interpretations of what we have written on
our web page about the VR speaker and "how they work". The comments made
by Morley, Pinky and a couple of others have provided us with hours of
amusing reading. Obviously, there are some amateur psychologists out
there. And guys, thanks for the publicity!
The marketing of products on our web page has been formulated by our
marketing department to create a mental picture of what customers can
expect when they hear our products. Complicated math and acoustic theory is
difficult for laymen to understand, so we have limited our discussion to
general principles rather than mathematical formulae. That type of
information would be too hard for most folks to decipher, as most of our
customers are not engineers. Therefore, the terms of "Global Axis" and
"Acoustic Inverse Replication", were created to paint mental pictures in
the minds of potential future customers. I take credit for "inventing"
these names, and Albert and the other personnel here have given me their
blessing as they are not marketing types.
If you have problems with these names, please send me private e-mail
letting me know what your vote for a new name would be. Let's have a contest!
Seriously, think about it: you are quite wrong if you believe that Albert
Von Schweikert or any other engineer who has spent over 30 years doing
design and research would not have a grasp of generic engineering terms.
The fact that I have given proprietary names instead of generic names for
our technology would be familiar to those of you who have taken any classes
in marketing.
We understand not all types of marketing will appeal to all types of
customers. That's ok too, we can't please everyone.
Yes, we use the popular Linkwitz-Riley fourth order crossover design !
However, Albert has modified the basic topology in order to allow
customization of our driver's radiation pattern off axis. For this reason,
our circuits don't have the same architecture or appearance of the textbook
design. Accordingly I also decided to give it a proprietary name since it
is not the basic design, once again.
And yes, we use every type of computerized testing equipment used by every
successful high end loudspeaker manufacturer, including Dunlavy. Please
visit our web site for a picture of a VR-3 without a sock placed next to
one of our assembly line test computers: the picture on the screen is a
global axis polar response graph which takes more time to test than the
simple axial measurements done by Dunlavy. Yes, we care about our speaker's
total sound radiation pattern, as that is what is actually heard.
And yes, Albert Von Schweikert has professionally designed raw drivers for
many companies and his engineering ability is beyond reproach. Pinky has
tried to make fun of someone far more talented than himself, and his
jealousy is showing! No one, including us, have taken his venomous, hateful
remarks seriously.
Just don't confuse the difference between technology and marketing. The
web page is marketing. Our engineering expertise is quite obvious to
anyone listening. Seven major reviews have indicated that we have met our
target goal, not including the fact that we are currently outselling
Dunlavy by more than 3-1. What does that mean? Well, we can tell you that
no one is buying VR speakers because of our marketing names, they are
buying them based on the sound quality. If this angers you, so be it!
All of you should readily admit that web sites of any manufacturer (audio
or otherwise) are seen by far more people that those of us that inhabit
these few audio news groups. Out of 12,000 people who visit our website
every month, only the handful of you "crusaders" have ever complained about
our marketing terms.
However, don't stop now! I just read that GM has called their new magnetic
power steering "Magna-Steer". That must be putting you "big time critics"
into a real lather since you don't like marketing names. Gee, they could
have just called it "power steering". Why don't you take on GM, guys.
But hey, that's why they call it rec.audio opinion right ? Thanks for
yours.
Mister Audio Guru
IMHO the VR-3's are the BEST $2000 speaker ever! Who gives a rat's ass
what the crap they "name" something...JUST LISTEN. THAT'S WHAT IT IS
ALL ABOUT ANYWAY..DUH!!!
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
Gregory Glockner wrote:
My B&W CDM-1's cannot reproduce those
> rumbles, but my parents' VR-4's make this fantastic, other-worldly
> rumble.
Your parents have VR4s? How cool! I think the best speakers my Dad
ever owned were made by Crown Japan.
Brian
Stewart Pinkerton
awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) writes:
I do believe your bluff has been called, Jim...............
Y'know, I could have *sworn* that Albert said DAL refuse to give out
off-axis response plots.....................
p.s. If you're just a satisfied customer, why is Albert posting *all*
his stuff through you?