planet audio bb175.4 any good?

I will not judge you and I will not dish out any harsh words based on your answer, though you have not afforded others that courtesy.
I work under the assumption that we're all adults. If you think my post merits "harsh words," then use them. I'm not particularly thin-skinned.

Having the opportunity to read all that you've presented above, I wonder what some of your personal preferences are toward the handling of the transition between drivers.
My overriding preference, though you didn't mention it, is to keep crossovers out of the midrange whenever possible, and to certainly never use drivers of differing directivity through the midrange under any circumstances. That means either a coincident driver (e.g. KEF Uni-Q, Tannoy Dual Concentric) or a relatively small wideband driver augmented down low.

Namely, time coherency and whether it is introduced physically or electronically, or indeed, at all.
Time coherency where is the question. It's desirable in principle, but in practice it's just about impossible to obtain in a car over an area that encompasses both ears of a typical human being. I would not compromise something else that is audible to achieve a theoretical ideal.

My main interest is in how you feel about using drivers in reverse relative polarity to achieve a constructive behavior in the transitional region between any given drivers, but also how you think it affects the final presentation knowing that there's at least one driver moving in the opposite direction of the original signal.
Of course, if it audibly and measurably improves matters, one should invert the polarity (which is different from phase) of a driver. I don't understand why that is even a question. Chasing something that may be audible under certain circumstances at the expense of something audible to everyone everywhere is not my idea of rational behavior.

 
Nice bit of projection there, Tommy. You attack conclusions based on logical inferences drawn from the history of double-blind same/different subjective listening tests by calling them as faith-based as your own superstititions. Is this forum your version of pinball? No, probably not, because if it was and you were Tommy you'd be good at it, but you're only good at being an ignorant ass here.
Really, WTF are you talking about? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

(And I note you didn't bother to include a cite to public discussion of the "test" that JJ and JA were allegedly setting up for you. Presumably, given who you say was involved, were it real than there would have been discussion at RAH-E or some forum.)
What was it you last said? Oh, yes, "I'm done with your sorry ass." As per your pattern, more ********.

BTW, RAH-E was a heavily moderated forum with a couple of dozen regulars. Since you're full of crap, you have no way of knowing the actual constraints, like RAH-E's inherent inability to support such a venture. Yet another example of you tossing out things you found on the 'net.

As another point of interest, this what lead up to the event. A close friend bought the Adcom. He didn't have a lot of listening experience and firmly believed that all amps are essentially the same. He brought the amp over, we plugged it into my system and sonic difference between it and the 4BST was immediately apparent. It wasn't subtle in the least. My friend took the amp back to the store, believing it was broken, and exchanged it for another. That amp did the same thing. He took it back to the store again and got a refund, and I found him a lightly used Muse 100 that he happily uses to this day.

I occasionally post on DIYMA, though since it became a den of superstition (since its founder sold it to the padding peddler) I've curtailed my involvement there considerably. I've posted more on there than here, and it should not be difficult for someone of slightly-below-average intelligence or higher to find my posts there. (You, however, may have profound difficulties in doing so.) You're not intelligent or thoughtful enough to be memorable to me, so I have no idea if I communicated with you there.
What's with the ridiculously lame flaming? I can only guess that the act offers you some imaginary relief, when in reality you sound desperate, bitter, utterly humorless and ultimately somewhat embarrassing. Your choice.

I also note that you didn't bother to say a **** thing about the actual subject of this thread: the Planet Audio BB175.4.
I've never heard it.

I posted on this thread because I own one and have used it, though over the next week I'm going to install two Eclipse Class D amps that will take up less horizontal real estate (but about 4" more vertical real estate) and give me more power into the 8Ω impedance of the drive units I'm using for wideband and midbass duties. Have you ever even heard of the amp in question?
I am surprised by your question, as hearing an amp that sounds like any other amp isn't necessary, as per your own mantra. I see you don't mind a subjective approach as long as there's hope of scoring a point. This would be much more fun if you weren't as transparent.

Presumably you just jumped on this thread to spread your faith-based agenda...
I see you're just going to repeat what I said to you. Great.

FWIW, I listen and make up my mind with no preconceived, a priori notions as to the outcome. Somehow faith doesn't figure into that picture, but its opposite does. Any other brilliant strokes of logic?

...not because you actually know something that would be remotely relevant to anyone.
This is interesting. A completely disingenuous individual who's been lying his ass off and obfuscating every step of the way is suddenly concerned with a relevant contribution to the community. Whatever is convenient to say, right?

Clearly, your (err...) return amounts to an exploratory mission launched in hopes of finding something/anything to work with, since you've failed miserably and managed to paint yourself as a lying shithead in the process. As such, it's up to me to bid farewell. There is nothing left to say. I wish you and yours a Happy Holiday and truly hope that you'll conduct yourself with more sincerity in the future.

 
BTW, RAH-E was a heavily moderated forum with a couple of dozen regulars. Since you're full of crap, you have no way of knowing the actual constraints, like RAH-E's inherent inability to support such a venture. Yet another example of you tossing out things you found on the 'net.
Actually, from about 1997 until maybe 1999 or 2000 I participated quite a bit on RAH-E, so I know that it was moderated. (I don't recall ever having a post affected by it.) The words of JJ, Dick Pierce, Arny Krueger, and others were very useful and interesting to me, in that they opened up my eyes and convinced me to do my own testing to see if some of their claims - which I found incredible at the time - were true. Turns out, they were right.

I am surprised by your question, as hearing an amp that sounds like any other amp isn't necessary, as per your own mantra. I see you don't mind a subjective approach as long as there's hope of scoring a point. This would be much more fun if you weren't as transparent.
I am done with your sorry ass, just tying up a few loose ends.

You correctly pick up on an inadvertent error of mine: I meant to put "heard" in quotes. However, your reaction to it is interesting. My only point was that you know nothing of the actual product under discussion, so you just came here to be an evangelist for ******** and not to help anyone determine the relative merits of the product under discussion. You may recall that my first post in the thread was relevant commentary on the amp based on actual experience using it. Weakness of the materials used for the terminals and so forth. That is the point I scored - successfully, even if it went over your poor little head - and it was not weaker for my lack of quotes-for-irony. I made no endorsement of an idiot's approach to audio. (No offense to anyone of below-average intelligence who may be reading, quoted party excluded, intended.)

I see you're just going to repeat what I said to you. Great.
Actually, I've been calling deaf idiots like you "faith based" since before 9/11. And I stepped it up when your fellow-traveling parasites and louses in the Bush Administration started to use "reality-based" as an epithet. On DIYMA my earliest such reference occurred in 2006. (The forum started, perhaps, a year before that.)

FWIW, I listen and make up my mind with no preconceived, a priori notions as to the outcome. Somehow faith doesn't figure into that picture, but its opposite does.
(NOTE: this next part's not for you, because you likely lack the reading comprehension skills and other critical faculties required to digest its content. Rather, it is for other readers of this thread.)

********. You approach audio boxes with an mental (I intentionally did not use the word "intellectual") framework of irrational belief that commodity boxes, likely sonically identical in fact, sound different. You seem to think that there's some magic that comes from, I don't know, thick faceplates or high pricetags or voodoo witchcraft or...something that imbues commodity electronic components with preternatural abilities modern measurements cannot capture.

Someone interested in music reproduction who is more rational and intelligent, by contrast, as at least some familiarity with the work on actual audible differences in audio components starting at the latest with

David L. Clark, "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator," 30 J. Audio Eng. Soc. 5, at 330 (1982)

and the progeny of that peer-reviewed article.

Therefore, such an intelligent, rational individual will demand actual proof that there is a difference - that is to say, some aspect of a commodity audio boxes' measured performance is sufficiently poor to be at or beyond the point of JND, or a statistically significant positive result for a difference in a subjective level-matched double blind listening evaluation - before ascribing sonic differences to commodity parts.

managed to paint yourself as a lying shithead in the process. As such, it's up to me to bid farewell. There is nothing left to say. I wish you and yours a Happy Holiday and truly hope that you'll conduct yourself with more sincerity in the future.
Aww, how cute. I could only feel more fully embraced if such words were uttered by an even more noxious and deluded fellow. Maybe Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Mugabe, or Asif Zardari...

 
Actually, from about 1997 until maybe 1999 or 2000 I participated quite a bit on RAH-E, so I know that it was moderated. (I don't recall ever having a post affected by it.) The words of JJ, Dick Pierce, Arny Krueger, and others were very useful and interesting to me, in that they opened up my eyes and convinced me to do my own testing to see if some of their claims - which I found incredible at the time - were true. Turns out, they were right.
...just when I thought there was nothing left to add.

Finally, it all makes sense! You were a nutswinger on RAH-E, lurking in the background, grunting out "me toos." The supposed technical discussions that you had with the John Dunlavy took place in Usenet. Same with Andrew, though, I can't imagine how technical it got discussing the product with the sales guy. That's why you have the email addresses they used there. For those who don't know, that's the equivalent of shooting a PM on the forums. And, as I knew, you were paraphrasing text you found on the web, like on Arny's site. Yes, Arny Kruger, a barely employed computer tech by day, servicing PCs in dentists' offices, and an Internet scientist by night. Oh, my sides are hurting! This is just like your imaginary record collection and your calling an Adcom 5800 a "ringer," when it was convenient to say so. Hell, it only took us three rounds to determine who the initial system belonged to. Everything is a series of half truths at best. I've met ******** artists before, but there were few who took it his far. Un-be-lievable.

Even the dumbest of the dumb kids on this forum aren't stupid enough to consistently lie to someone who'd most certainly know better. Alas, you've refined a concept after all. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 
The supposed technical discussions that you had with the John Dunlavy took place in Usenet.
E-mail and phone (what I wrote) ≠ usenet. Of course, those of you with poor reading comprehension skills wouldn't understand that people who know how to use language know what words mean and accordingly choose their words carefully. And actually mean what they write. No more, and no less.

Alas, your thought processes, such as they may be even deserving of the word "thought," are as sloppy when it comes to the English language as they are when it comes to audio. One shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.

 
Alas, your thought processes, such as they may be even deserving of the word "thought," are as sloppy when it comes to the English language as they are when it comes to audio. One shouldn't be surprised by that, I suppose.
You lurked on Usenet; you should know the rules. There are four perfect auto-flames that make for an automatic disqualification pointing to the writer as a raging moron:

1. The dreaded SPELFLAIM - includes grammar, spelling, and word usage. (hmm...look above)

2. The IKYABWAI - I know you are, but what am I? (one of your favorites, as well)

3. The Faglame - self-explanatory.

4. ...and the worst of all, calling someone a Nazi.

For the younger crowd, an auto-flame is a flame that's so lame, so unimaginative that it flames the writer instead of its intended recipient. So there we have it. Aside from being a pathological liar who hasn't done ****, merely paraphrasing text found on the 'net and passing it off as your own, we now have a perfect ending to it all.

 
You lurked on Usenet; you should know the rules. There are four perfect auto-flames that make for an automatic disqualification pointing to the writer as a raging moron:
1. The dreaded SPELFLAIM - includes grammar, spelling, and word usage. (hmm...look above)
Again, you're proving my point about your sloppy "thought" processes. I did not insult your grammar, spelling, or word usage.

Rather, I insulted your ability to read and comprehend the words I put in front of you, because as you've once again shown your reading abilities are quite poor. But don't fret. I'm sure there is a community college or GED center that would try to help you with your problems, if/when you realize that you need the help.

 
Again, you're proving my point about your sloppy "thought" processes. I did not insult your grammar, spelling, or word usage.
Rather, I insulted your ability to read and comprehend the words I put in front of you, because as you've once again shown your reading abilities are quite poor. But don't fret. I'm sure there is a community college or GED center that would try to help you with your problems, if/when you realize that you need the help.
"...as sloppy when it comes to the English language as they are..."

Edit: I had a bunch of stuff written. Ultimately, it just doesn't matter.

 
Do you not understand basic English subject-verb relationships when you read other people's written words? You obviously don't understand the foundational literature about sonic differences in audio amplifiers despite your willingness to preach things that any rational and civilized person knows are simply falsehoods, so such a lack of foundation in other fields would not shock me.

Let me simplify for you, Tommy.* I wrote earlier that I had e-mailed and spoken on the phone with certain individuals. You then somehow equated that communication with "usenet." I pointed out your seeming inability to digest the words in front of your face. I was pointing out your inability to think (the object of the phrase you bolded was "your thought processes") not anything about the mechanics of your writing.

Your reply was nonsensical for, among other reasons, the lack of obvious grammatical or spelling errors in your text I quoted.

I realize that I write like an actual educated adult, with subordinate clauses and such. Perhaps that is unfair to you. Maybe I need to write in baby sentences so your poor little head can understand my words.

Again, perhaps you have a local community college or GED tutoring center that can help you get a more solid foundation in basic logic, reasoning, and reading comprehension skills. Which is to say, a foundation at all.

*In case your musical education is as poor as your education in the rudiments of audio science and your education in basic English reading comprehension, in calling you "Tommy" I am calling you deaf, dumb, and blind. It is a reference to a character in the Who's rock opera of the same name. I decline, however, to comment on your skills at pinball.

 
I'd be lying if I said it hasn't been fun. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif

 
You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to matching speakers to amps' power ratings.
I may be a techno-idiot to someone so brilliant as you seem to think you are but I know voodoo when it's utterly obvious.

You know as well as anyone that audio "geniuses" just like yourself have walked away from a lot of listening tests with a laundry list of excuses why the $100 pioneer amp was indistinguishable from the $XXXX amp.

Condescend all you want.

All the voodoo you can conjure up can't overcome the fact that even the platinum eared can't hear what the computers say is there.

 
I had just purchased a planet Audio Big Bang 1300b. Im going to Okinawa,Japan on the 7th. If anyone wants it Im looking for $400 but it's neg. I really don't need it in another country. lol Let me know if you want pics.

 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Old Thread: Please note, there have been no replies in this thread for over 3 years!
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

Similar threads

He wants to strap the amps to double the output to one sub. Some amps allow you to "couple" them. This allows you to wire up the one sub powered...
5
1K
Thanks man I’ll give it a try I’m usually pretty bad at this kind of stuff. I wasn’t sure if there was a website or something that had a picture I...
2
1K
Turn the volume completely down and operate ot normally. This is to see if it is the built in amplifier that is shutting down. If the radio does...
1
110

About this thread

Lil Poot

5,000+ posts
you sturrin at me brah?
Thread starter
Lil Poot
Joined
Location
Wichita KS
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
43
Views
8,485
Last reply date
Last reply from
RAM_Designs
really.jpg

Popwarhomie

    May 25, 2024
  • 0
  • 0
Screenshot_20240524_202505_Samsung Internet.jpg

winkychevelle

    May 24, 2024
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top