Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Extra speakers, and rude assumptions
Message-ID: <1770@randvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 22-Apr-84 02:26:28 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.1770
Posted: Sun Apr 22 02:26:28 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Apr-84 19:06:56 EST
References: <2695@rabbit.UUCP>, <355@opus.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 25

+
OK, let's cool down a minute and think about what we're talking about.

If I leave a piece of paper (say, 8-1/2x11 inches, college-ruled)
sitting out in my listening room on top of a pencil, it will most
likely cause several times greater distortion than the cone of a
4-inch speaker.  There is nothing magic about the speaker; it isn't
going to somehow `suck up' more sound energy than strikes its surface.
And neither the paper nor the speaker can re-radiate more sound
energy than it receives.  When you consider that my paper/pencil
combination is likely to be much less linear than even a speaker with
a lousy suspension, and that the paper can do as good a job of sound
radiation as the speaker cone, it becomes clear that even a slightly
messy listening room is going to have a greater effect than that
small speaker.

As a matter of fact, I think that vacuuming the listening-room carpet
will have a much greater effect on perceived sound, as it will change
the high-frequency absorption characteristics by raising the nap.

So, pick up after yourself and keep things clean, like your mommy
says.     :-)

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall