Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Extra speakers, and rude assumptions
Message-ID: <355@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 17:25:45 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.355
Posted: Thu Apr 12 17:25:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 06:20:42 EST
References: <2695@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 67

<>
Tepper (stcvax!lat) = ">>" vs. (rabbit!jj) = ">"

>>So far we've got:
>>
>>	rabbit!jj commenting on psycho-acoustics without
>>	trying the experiment.
>
>Says who, buster?  I do work in psycho-acoustics (and not just for
>speech, Tom) for a living.  (also digital methods of other 
>sorts that I can't mention.) If you look at the header of my articles,
>or if you read net.audio, that's clear.  Where do YOU get off with the
>ideas about who does what experiments?  I didn't try the
>one on the net, as it was so poorly formed that it couldn't
>work...
OK, Larry jumps to the conclusion that you didn't try the experiment just
because you didn't give us any results.  Yes, the experiment, as originally
suggested, was not well planned - so flame at winograd; it was HIS idea!

>Have you ever considered that there might be a few INFORMED
>opinions in this newsgroup?
Yes, jj, and yours may be one, but not the only one.  What I would like -
and what I think Larry would like - is for someone to throw enough honest
science at this extra-speaker stuff to get a decent answer.  (Personally, I
don't expect a decent answer until we have a well-formed question, and I
don't think we do yet.)  If someone will present some science, we can handle it.

>	 Larry Tepper, who tells me what I have and haven't
>done, without ANY knowledge whatsoever of what I can, have,
>am, or will do.
>...
>>Ok, to cover my butt, maybe you DID try the experiment, but
>>just forgot to post your results.
>...
>No, I didn't forget,  such things are covered in the literature
>fairly well, if you go look.  No, I won't bother to post references,
>you clearly don't want facts, anyhow, and I have valuable
>work to do.
>...
>Please post an apology to net.audio, and all further articles to net.flame,
>at least until you decide to be civil once again.

Jj, you've jumped to a pretty harsh conclusion about Larry.  He's made a
fair request - if you've got info, would you share it with us?  If you're
only here to flame at people, then YOU should move to net.flame and YOU
should apologize...but I've read some of your better postings, and I think
you've got worthwhile things to say in net.audio.  The tone of this one
posting of yours, however, was not quite civil.
We all have valuable work to do, I guess.  If you're bowing out, do so
quietly, without parting shots.  HOWEVER, if you'll take it easy a bit, how
about sharing with us some good sources of technically reliable, carefully
considered information on sound reproduction systems, etc.  I have had a
lot of trouble finding anything much outside of manufacturers literature,
which is generally worth somewhat less than its weight in manure (except
for Beranek's "Acoustics", which doesn't really fill the bill).

In particular, the "extra speaker" business is straight out of the
literature that Linn and Naim put out.  Linn in particular makes several
claims that run counter to conventional wisdom.  Now, I don't have time to
go off and take the courses (or work through several long texts) to get all
of the background I need to examine those claims - BUT if someone will
present me with some facts and/or some good sources of facts, I've got the
background (and time and willingness) to examine each side for its
technical merits and make an intelligent decision.  Is that a fair basis?
-- 
"A friend of the devil is a friend of mine."		Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd				(303) 444-5710 x3086