planet audio bb175.4 any good?

[FJF 10+ year member]

It means no difference existed. I wouldn't mention a comparison if it wasn't level matched and blind.

I have a feeling that if we begin discussing testing protocols, the said arrangements may fall into question. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Under similar circumstances, I have heard a difference with a speaker moved 5cm. So I'm not too worried about my hearing. Audio marketers often are, though, because my ears are actually connected to a functioning brain.

Which Classe and Adcom amps were they, and what was the rest of the system? I assume it wasn't your own. We don't get much talk about this sort of gear around here. Thankfully, I have some familiarity with the subject.

 

[DS-21 10+ year member]

Which Classe and Adcom amps were they, and what was the rest of the system? I assume it wasn't your own. We don't get much talk about this sort of gear around here. Thankfully, I have some familiarity with the subject.

The Adcom GFA-5800, the Classe was CP-200 or something like that. "200" was in the model name. The speakers were just about the hardest thing for an amp to drive, Martin Logan Quest-Z's, with their wicked HF impedance. Yes, my old Nelson Pass designed Adcom may be considered a bit of a "ringer" in idiot, oh I mean "high end," circles, but I'm perfectly satisfied that a cheap pro amp such as a Behringer EP2500 would be just as competent.

As for the associated commodity parts, um I mean "equipment," the CD player was a Meridian 508.20 (I don't think it had yet been upgraded to 508.24 spec at the time of the test) and the preamp was a Meridian 501. There were wires and stuff, but I assume nobody is stupid enough to think that wires are remotely sonically relevant.

Subsequent listening, between the Adcom GFA-5800 and a GFA-535II, and the Panny receiver, was done on my Tannoy System 12 DMT II's. Admittedly, at 96dB/w/m with a benign impedance curve, they are easy for any amp to drive.

None of that changes the simple fact that amps are commodity parts. There are people who can hear who understand that. People who don't realize that amps are commodity parts are so deaf that they listen to marketers instead of music.

 

[Louisiana_CRX 5,000+ posts]

i have one in my F150...i like it all right

 

[FJF 10+ year member]

The Adcom GFA-5800, the Classe was CP-200 or something like that. "200" was in the model name. The speakers were just about the hardest thing for an amp to drive, Martin Logan Quest-Z's, with their wicked HF impedance. Yes, my old Nelson Pass designed Adcom may be considered a bit of a "ringer" in idiot, oh I mean "high end," circles, but I'm perfectly satisfied that a cheap pro amp such as a Behringer EP2500 would be just as competent.
As for the associated commodity parts, um I mean "equipment," the CD player was a Meridian 508.20 (I don't think it had yet been upgraded to 508.24 spec at the time of the test) and the preamp was a Meridian 501. There were wires and stuff, but I assume nobody is stupid enough to think that wires are remotely sonically relevant.

Subsequent listening, between the Adcom GFA-5800 and a GFA-535II, and the Panny receiver, was done on my Tannoy System 12 DMT II's. Admittedly, at 96dB/w/m with a benign impedance curve, they are easy for any amp to drive.

None of that changes the simple fact that amps are commodity parts. There are people who can hear who understand that. People who don't realize that amps are commodity parts are so deaf that they listen to marketers instead of music.

The 5800 is an excellent amplifier and I'm not surprised that you heard no difference in an unfamiliar system under a pseudo-scientific pretense, especially with an apparent lack of listener training. The Classe, name aside, isn't a very revealing amp. There are better ways to go about this. As for the 535 vs Panasonic receiver, again, it's an issue of knowing what to listen for and ultimately caring about it. I've had every amp you mentioned in my own system, and I still own the Panasonic receiver. Both, the 535 and the Panasonic, are relatively low-rez with a similar tonal balance. The differences are subtle, especially when using a very sensitive and somewhat unrevealing transducer.

Years ago, I sat in on a (real) DBT testing absolute phase. I knew what to listen for, but could not reliably identify a change. Does that mean that a shift in absolute phase is inaudible? No, it means that I couldn't hear it. Other folks could, indeed, identify the change reliably just as many can reliably identify a change in amplifiers. That was my original point.

As for wire, I bet I could do a blind test where you could hear a difference, and another where you couldn't. Testing, no matter how well-presented, can be easily influenced to show a desired result. Again, it's silly lumping everything in a product category into the same basket, while making absolute claims. There's a bit more to it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[DS-21 10+ year member]

The 5800 is an excellent amplifier and I'm not surprised that you heard no difference in an unfamiliar system

Stupid assumption. I was quite familiar with that system. Lived with it for years.

it's an issue of knowing what to listen for and ultimately caring about it.

Bullshit.

I'm sorry you're so insecure in your intellectual and critical listening skills that you are unable to admit that there are no audible differences in the face of people being paid to convince you that nonexistent sonic differences are in fact there. (Or maybe you're just functionally deaf. From the tenor of your posts it could be either a mental inadequacy or a physical handicap. Can't tell. If you're an audio dealer, my working assumption is that you are both.) At any rate, fortunately some of us are more highly evolved. We pay attention to things that matter, and understand that other things are just interchangeable commodity parts.

In audio, at least from a sound quality perspective, speakers, speaker placement, rooms, recordings, and EQ/room correction software fit in the former category (things that matter). Basically everything else (once it meets minimum standards, at least) fits in the latter category (commodity parts). Not to say that there are non-sonic reasons for choosing one amp, source unit, etc. over another (ergonomics, aesthetics, perceived or actual build quality, size, anticipated resale value, etc.), but from a sonic perspective they are just commodities.

I've had every amp you mentioned in my own system, and I still own the Panasonic receiver. Both, the 535 and the Panasonic, are relatively low-rez with a similar tonal balance. The differences are subtle, especially when using a very sensitive and somewhat unrevealing transducer.

You missed the part where the 535II sounded the same as the 5800. That might not happen on the MLs, admittedly, due to the difficult load they present in the treble and the much stouter PS on the 5800. But they are considerably lower-fidelity speakers than the big Tannoys. (I could also tell you about the Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec that sounded no different playing CD's from a ~$70 Samsung SACD/DVD-A/DVD player. Well, until level matched they did sound different. People who can hear are sensitive to minor changes in level, of course.)

For those who listen to music instead of marketing, a modern Tannoy 12" Dual Concentric is more "revealing" than all but a small handful of speakers. I've built and owned a lot of speakers. Smooth frequency response, constant and narrow directivity, good thermal management for low thermal compression, very rigid and low-diffraction cabinet, and low distortion. What do you listen to, some fist-sized minimonitors thrust out halfway into the room?

 

[FJF 10+ year member]

Stupid assumption. I was quite familiar with that system. Lived with it for years.

Perhaps I misunderstood, as you pointed to a CDP you were unsure of and unidentifiable wire. Folks who own their own gear typically know what they have, especially in High-End.

Bullshit.

I'm afraid not. Listener training is the first step of every valid testing protocol. This cannot be debated. Sorry.

I'm sorry you're so insecure in your intellectual and critical listening skills that you are unable to admit that there are no audible differences in the face of people being paid to convince you that nonexistent sonic differences are in fact there. (Or maybe you're just functionally deaf. From the tenor of your posts it could be either a mental inadequacy or a physical handicap. Can't tell. If you're an audio dealer, my working assumption is that you are both.) At any rate, fortunately some of us are more highly evolved. We pay attention to things that matter, and understand that other things are just interchangeable commodity parts.

What's with the juvenile insults? It's rather clear that you're convinced of a preconceived outcome, making all comparisons moot from the getogo. I started talking to you, because I mistakenly thought that you were interested in good sound. Now I see your claims as a part of some self-righteous audio-political agenda. If this is how you mean to proceed, I'll have to bow out. Having spent years discussing this very subject ad nauseum with folks much better versed then yourself, I'm really not interested in taking the time.

In audio, at least from a sound quality perspective, speakers, speaker placement, rooms, recordings, and EQ/room correction software fit in the former category (things that matter). Basically everything else (once it meets minimum standards, at least) fits in the latter category (commodity parts). Not to say that there are non-sonic reasons for choosing one amp, source unit, etc. over another (ergonomics, aesthetics, perceived or actual build quality, size, anticipated resale value, etc.), but from a sonic perspective they are just commodities.

You're comparing items whose impact differs on the order of magnitude. That's just silly. While I can appreciate your personal perceptive and your preferences, it's rather absurd to dictate a pecking order based on ignorance.

You missed the part where the 535II sounded the same as the 5800. That might not happen on the MLs, admittedly, due to the difficult load they present in the treble and the much stouter PS on the 5800. But they are considerably lower-fidelity speakers than the big Tannoys. (I could also tell you about the Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec that sounded no different playing CD's from a ~$70 Samsung SACD/DVD-A/DVD player. Well, until level matched they did sound different. People who can hear are sensitive to minor changes in level, of course.)

OK, I'll bite. How did you level-match and what was the allowable variance?

For those who listen to music instead of marketing, a modern Tannoy 12" Dual Concentric is more "revealing" than all but a small handful of speakers.

They're the aural equivalent of mud. BTW, since you mention listening to music, this is the vinyl part of my record collection:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d26/blkgti/recordshelves001.jpg

Given the comment quoted above, can you post a pic of you collection of music? Someone like you, who is sharp enough not to listen to yet undetermined marketing, choosing to use music as his guide must have a very impressive selection of recordings. Obviously, little ignorant me with only ~8,000 records on all kinds of media scattered around the house can't hold a candle to visionary like yourself.

I've built and owned a lot of speakers. Smooth frequency response, constant and narrow directivity, good thermal management for low thermal compression, very rigid and low-diffraction cabinet, and low distortion.

...and almost no resolution.

For whatever reason, you seem to feel like you have the proverbial bull by the balls. If you stick with audio and actually learn how to listen, you may be in for a big surprise down the road.

What do you listen to, some fist-sized minimonitors thrust out halfway into the room?

Yes, they're "fist-sized minimonitors" called Dunlavy SC-V. You can see one on the left in the pic I link'd above.

Here's what they look like (not my pics):

http://www.kogerer.ru/subj/pic/dunlavy5.jpg

http://www.kogerer.ru/subj/pic/dunlavy51.jpg

Next?

 

[n2audio 5,000+ posts]

Geez FJ -- you're surely aware of the multiple scientific double blinds done over the years concering this issue with the results continuously disproving all the voodoo you're spewing. I'm sure all those tests were flawed in your eyes, but if you want to continue down the path of analysis paralysis please take it to PM.

The rest of us are just fine listening to the music despite the price tag.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

OP - I was/am in about the exact same situation as you.

I was running a Lanzar Opti100.4 bridged to my components at 180x2. Simply because my comps are rated for it I wanted to run something that could get 250 to them.

I went with one of the Opti4x400d's - which is VERY similar design to the PA full range D's.

I like the amp. SQ has not been an issue. Power is substantial and the amp has been reliable.

My only complaint is that I have a high pitched noise issue since installing the new amp. Not a problem at higher volume, but when it's low enough to talk over naturally the whine is painfully obvious.

I've tried a soundgate noise supressor w/no luck. Looking like an internal amp issue so that's something to take into consideration. It could be an isolated problem with my amp.

 

[DS-21 10+ year member]

Perhaps I misunderstood, as you pointed to a CDP you were unsure of and unidentifiable wire. Folks who own their own gear typically know what they have, especially in High-End.

I said I was familiar with the system and had listened to it for years, not that I was mine.

And why the hell is someone with a brain going to pay attention to the ****ing wires stringing together two boxes, unless one of them is disconnected? Anyone who thinks wires matter in the slightest is, simply speaking, a deaf idiot.

I'm afraid not. Listener training is the first step of every valid testing protocol. This cannot be debated. Sorry.

Actually, if you knew something about audio beyond the price tags of overpriced crap you would know that the necessity of listener training has in fact been debated in the serious audio community. Somebody - Dr. Sean Olive or Dr. Floyd Toole, perhaps - did a comparison between listeners who had gone through Harman's listener training protocols and untrained listeners. What they found was that both sets reached the same result, but that a larger n was required for the same level of statistical significance in the untrained listeners.

It's rather clear that you're convinced of a preconceived outcome

I am now, because unlike some I am capable of learning from my experiences. I got interested in doing such tests by reading studies about what is actually audible and what not, and then doing my own tests. Had I thought so at the time, do you think I would've wasted 2 grand on a Nelson Pass-designed Adcom amp as a 18 year-old instead of buying a similarly powerful Crown or Mackie or QSC at a quarter the price?

You're comparing items whose impact differs on the order of magnitude.

If you consider the difference between "quite a bit" and "not at all" orders of magnitude, then absolutely right, yes..

OK, I'll bite. How did you level-match and what was the allowable variance?

0.1dB, measured with a scope with pink noise, then spot-checked with three or four sine waves picked randomly from Sound Check with Alan Parsons and Stephen Court (Mobile Fidelity SPCD-15).

Of course, if you actually had a half a bloody clue what you were talking about you would've asked me about switching protocol and any delays involved, not the level matching...

Given the comment quoted above, can you post a pic of you collection of music? Someone like you, who is sharp enough not to listen to yet undetermined marketing, choosing to use music as his guide must have a very impressive selection of recordings. Obviously, little ignorant me with only ~8,000 records on all kinds of media scattered around the house can't hold a candle to visionary like yourself.

A picture of my music would just be a shot of an external hard drive. According to iTunes, my music collection - all stored in Apple Lossless format, burned from CD's or ripped from vinyl - consists of 19,991 items, 61.5 days, 581.74 GB worth of music. And then I have a handful, maybe 30-35 SACD's and DVD-A's.

Yes, they're "fist-sized minimonitors" called Dunlavy SC-V. You can see one on the left in the pic I link'd above.

I'm slightly familiar with the SC-V. More so, admittedly, with and SC-IVA, which I used to own but discarded for better speakers. I've also had many interesting phone and e-mail conversations with Andrew Rigby, then of DAL, and the late John Dunlavy. Dunlavys do have an very coherent, penetrating sound, but they also require one to keep her/his head in a vice to keep in the sweet spot. Because of the driver spacing and 1st order crossovers, they only have that exquisite focus in a very, very tiny spot even in a very large room. Better speakers - those with narrow, constant directivity - throw a sweet region of sound, not a sweet postage stamp. Dunlavys are possibly the world's biggest headphones. Great for antisocial loaners but not so great for people who like to share the music with friends.

Oh, and because of their impedance curve, all amps will sound the same on your Dunlavys. And since you mentioned wires, Mr. Dunlavy, as you might know, referred to the claims that audio wires make a sonic difference as "floobydust." (Yes, DAL sold wires. Mr. Dunlavy freely admitted that the only reason he did so was that there was easy profit to make off of gullible people, and he looked at it as a subsidy for his speaker business.)

 

[FJF 10+ year member]

I said I was familiar with the system and had listened to it for years, not that I was mine.

It's a mighty fine line in the sand you just drew. So the system wasn't yours after all. Right.

And why the hell is someone with a brain going to pay attention to the ****ing wires stringing together two boxes, unless one of them is disconnected? Anyone who thinks wires matter in the slightest is, simply speaking, a deaf idiot.

That's very open-minded of you.

Actually, if you knew something about audio beyond the price tags of overpriced crap you would know that the necessity of listener training has in fact been debated in the serious audio community. Somebody - Dr. Sean Olive or Dr. Floyd Toole, perhaps - did a comparison between listeners who had gone through Harman's listener training protocols and untrained listeners. What they found was that both sets reached the same result, but that a larger n was required for the same level of statistical significance in the untrained listeners.

There are a total of 2 labs in the US geared for audio DBTs. Both enlist listener training as a primary pat of the protocol. Without it, no test is valid, as per Jim Johnston - the foremost authority on audio testing in North America.

I am now, because unlike some I am capable of learning from my experiences. I got interested in doing such tests by reading studies about what is actually audible and what not, and then doing my own tests. Had I thought so at the time, do you think I would've wasted 2 grand on a Nelson Pass-designed Adcom amp as a 18 year-old instead of buying a similarly powerful Crown or Mackie or QSC at a quarter the price?

Again, you're describing your personal limitations and assigning similar constrains onto others. I've owned pro amps, and I still use one in my HT. That same amp in my main system easily shows its limitations. Just because you, personally, can't hear something means just that, not unlike my not hearing a shift in absolute phase. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Until you understand the difference between the two, you'll keep sounding like a zealot.

If you consider the difference between "quite a bit" and "not at all" orders of magnitude, then absolutely right, yes..

I guess further discussion is indeed pointless.

0.1dB, measured with a scope with pink noise, then spot-checked with three or four sine waves picked randomly from Sound Check with Alan Parsons and Stephen Court (Mobile Fidelity SPCD-15).
Of course, if you actually had a half a bloody clue what you were talking about you would've asked me about switching protocol and any delays involved, not the level matching...

I could have asked a lot of questions, but I only needed one. Apparently, aside from telling folks what they can and cannot hear, you've decided extended the concept.

Here's what's interesting about your answer. You cited constraints I've heard before, as they're the standard DBT methodology. It can be found on the 'net with ease. However, and this is a BIG however, you failed to cite how those levels were set in your system. Given the detail in your replies, it doesn't seem like an oversight. It sure looks like you couldn't find and/or think of a plausible scenario.

A picture of my music would just be a shot of an external hard drive. According to iTunes, my music collection - all stored in Apple Lossless format, burned from CD's or ripped from vinyl - consists of 19,991 items, 61.5 days, 581.74 GB worth of music. And then I have a handful, maybe 30-35 SACD's and DVD-A's.

I should have known.

I'm slightly familiar with the SC-V. More so, admittedly, with and SC-IVA, which I used to own but discarded for better speakers. I've also had many interesting phone and e-mail conversations with Andrew Rigby, then of DAL, and the late John Dunlavy. Dunlavys do have an very coherent, penetrating sound, but they also require one to keep her/his head in a vice to keep in the sweet spot. Because of the driver spacing and 1st order crossovers, they only have that exquisite focus in a very, very tiny spot even in a very large room. Better speakers - those with narrow, constant directivity - throw a sweet region of sound, not a sweet postage stamp. Dunlavys are possibly the world's biggest headphones. Great for antisocial loaners but not so great for people who like to share the music with friends.

What a fascinating diatribe, completely skipping the fact revolving around your assumption. That's very disingenuous and it points to a distinct lack of credibility. Your replies read like snippets from Google searches and I have a feeling you're full of shit.

Andrew left DAL more than 11 years ago, right about the time JD sold the firm. Your age is listed as 29, making you 17-18 when you were supposedly having these discussion with folks selling very exotic speakers with limited availability that sold for many thousands of dollars. Better, as a teenager, you we able to have technical discussions with a man whose engineering expertise is literally legendary, a man regarded as a visionary in the field. Yea, sure, that's believable.

Oh, and because of their impedance curve, all amps will sound the same on your Dunlavys.

You don't say! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I could demo a 535 against a Bryston 4BST on SC-Vs and the difference is night and day. It's not subtle in the least. Obviously, you've never done this, but keep reading the specs.

Edit: on a side note, an Adcom 5300, 535's upgraded replacement, and a Bryston 4B ST were to be the subject of a DBT some years ago. JA from S'phile offered to conduct all the measurements, JJ from ATT Labs was setting up the protocol, and we were ready to rock. The system happened to be mine. Well, this never took place. It didn't happen, because the so-called (Internet) "scientists," including several major figures, wouldn't cough-up the money they were going to bet on the results. So much for faith.

And since you mentioned wires, Mr. Dunlavy, as you might know, referred to the claims that audio wires make a sonic difference as "floobydust." (Yes, DAL sold wires. Mr. Dunlavy freely admitted that the only reason he did so was that there was easy profit to make off of gullible people, and he looked at it as a subsidy for his speaker business.)

I knew John, may he rest in peace. Please have the decency not to put words in his mouth.

I've done this long enough to know when someone has an answer for everything that reads like someone else's text. The fact that you choose not to acknowledge your own statements, in lieu of voicing an echo-like sentiment over and over, also points to a lack of personal fortitude. Your comments regarding the folks at DAL show a time line not easily explained, as well as the absolutely ludicrous claims evolving from the mess. IOW, I think you're full of crap including the imaginary record collection referenced on itunes. GMAFB!

 

[FJF 10+ year member]

Geez FJ -- you're surely aware of the multiple scientific double blinds done over the years concering this issue with the results continuously disproving all the voodoo you're spewing. I'm sure all those tests were flawed in your eyes, but if you want to continue down the path of analysis paralysis please take it to PM.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to matching speakers to amps' power ratings.

 

[DS-21 10+ year member]

It's a mighty fine line in the sand you just drew. So the system wasn't yours after all. Right.

Nope. It wasn't. And I never claimed anything was mine that wasn't.

That's very open-minded of you.

I"m not open-minded about the "audibility" of stupid shit like nonbroken amps of competent design and wires, no. The science is clear, it's just the marketing and the delusions of the deaf that's muddying things up.

There are a total of 2 labs in the US geared for audio DBTs.

I don't know that you are right about that. I don't think it's true, though, given that at the very least such tests go on at Harman (perhaps you noticed the reference to Drs. Toole and Olive, supra), DTS (presumably: JJ is currently CTO there), Audyssey, QSC (who put the ABX Comparator into production, after all), and others.

But if that's true, it's a bloody sad commentary on the state of so-called high-end audio. After all, if companies don't know that their products are audibly different from others - audible differences being required for audio superiority to even be an issue - then they don't know anything. Well, actually, "don't know anything" is a pretty accurate commentary on modern high-end audio.

Just because you, personally, can't hear something means just that,

Just as people who like to brag about the size of their schlongs are usually millimeter men, people who use the "golden ears" argument are usually the least discriminating listeners. The fact of the matter is, JND's (that's "just noticeable differences" for scientific illiterates like you) for most of this stuff is well known, and well covered in the serious literature.

you failed to cite how those levels were set in your system. Given the detail in your replies, it doesn't seem like an oversight. It sure looks like you couldn't find and/or think of a plausible scenario.

Um, you measure the output with a 'scope and turn the appropriate knob to get the levels matched? Really, for someone borderline literate that was clearly implied in my post, supra.

What a fascinating diatribe, completely skipping the fact revolving around your assumption.

What fact, and what assumption?

Andrew left DAL more than 11 years ago, right about the time JD sold the firm. Your age is listed as 29, making you 17-18 when you were supposedly having these discussion with folks selling very exotic speakers with limited availability that sold for many thousands of dollars.

A few things.

First, my age is somehow calculated wrong by the site in my profile. In fact, if one does the math from my birthday (which is shown in the profile, I believe) that is readily apparent.

Second, my recollection is that Andrew worked at DAL in 2000 and at least some of 2001. That's not 11 years ago. I'm not going to do any research on that, however, because I just don't care that much. At any rate, I always communicated with him over his AOL address and not a DAL address. (Maybe DAL didn't have e-mail addresses. All of my correspondence with Mr. Dunlavy was over the address "DALJHD@cs.com.")

Better, as a teenager, you we able to have technical discussions with a man whose engineering expertise is literally legendary, a man regarded as a visionary in the field. Yea, sure, that's believable.

How does asking someone who's accomplished in a field questions, and he having the grace to answer, say anything about me except that I learned early on that the worst someone who knows something you want to learn can say is "go away," but that they usually don't?

Edit: on a side note, an Adcom 5300, 535's upgraded replacement, and a Bryston 4B ST were to be the subject of a DBT some years ago. JA from S'phile offered to conduct all the measurements, JJ from ATT Labs was setting up the protocol, and we were ready to rock. The system happened to be mine. Well, this never took place. It didn't happen, because the so-called (Internet) "scientists," including several major figures, wouldn't cough-up the money they were going to bet on the results. So much for faith.

I assume there's a thread on RAH-E about that. How about a cite? Maybe it's around the time of Steve Zipser fiasco. Fiasco for people who hear with things other than their ears, at least. People who do hear with their ears think it's funny that a loudmouth dealer couldn't hear the difference between a Pass Aleph something and Tom Nousaine's Yamaha integraed amp. Remember that?

I knew John, may he rest in peace. Please have the decency not to put words in his mouth.

I never had the pleasure of meeting the man, only speaking and corresponding with him.

But "floobydust" is his word. (I would use another word that starts with "f"...) Another phrase he used to describe the idiotic wire industry is "buzzard salve." Here are some of Mr. Dunlavy's public words on the subject: http://www.verber.com/mark/ce/cables.html

I've done this long enough to know when someone has an answer for everything that reads like someone else's text.

Shall I just call you Tommy? Deaf, dumb, and blind. I've been accused of many things, but I don't think there's any question that my voice shines through in everything I write.

IOW, I think you're full of crap including the imaginary record collection referenced on itunes. GMAFB!

Given your obvious dedication to a con, I couldn't give half a **** what you think. (Though I also won't make the assumption that you are capable of actual human thought, either.) I'm done with your sorry ***. Cheers. Enjoy your delusions.

 

[FJF 10+ year member]

I'm done with your sorry ***. Cheers. Enjoy your delusions.

Rich, coming from someone caught in a logistical dead end. You've tried several approaches, shifting emphasis when things didn't go as you planned, acting dishonestly every step of the way. Each post brings about a series of new-found revelations, conveniently and strategically placed against a comment you find disheartening. Naturally, this is followed by the repetition of the Mantra of Sameness, as if saying it over and over actually makes a difference. I hate to say it, every audio-political zealot I've ever met followed an identical trail. Not unlike those devoted to a particular religious sect, you're unable to deal with an alternate viewpoint, twisting and turning, bobbing and weaving, avoiding and fabricating whatever is necessary to block an idea lacking congruence with your system of beliefs. It's truly pathetic, yet strangely entertaining.

Your post, above, features more Google'd suppositions and another series of new explanations, as if written by a child unable to realize how silly it all sounds to an adult. I can only hope that you conduct your future discussions with a bit more intellectual (and personal) honesty, if only as sigh of respect for the community. As it stands now, I genuinely feel sorry for the fool who believes a word you say.

Edit: Wait, are you the guy who tried talking to me on DIYMA about a year or two back? I recall quite a few similarities in what was said, along with my telling him [you] that he's [you're] full of shit, too. He was fond of Google, as well. I'm not a big believer in coincidences.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/swordfight.gif.e3de6069f3ffe402fc3ab4a827365101.gif

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Well, I did learn one thing. My vocabulary needs a bit of expanding, lol.

I haven't seen such a full and frank exchange of views in years. My only wish is that you two might have been a bit more brotherly since you both seem to have a great deal of experience with some terrific people and products. 'Tis the season, bygones, and all that. Oh well. We wouldn't want to stray too far off the path of insults and garbage spewing normally seen here, would we? Lest we forget where we are. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

DS-21, I wonder if you'll humor me for a quick answer. I promise I'm not after a lengthy discussion, or to flame you in any fashion whatsoever. This is simply to satisfy my own curiosity and nothing more. 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. If you choose not to answer, that's alright too.

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. Namely, time coherency and whether it is introduced physically or electronically, or indeed, at all. Also, relative phase between drivers and how different circuit topologies introduce different behaviors and final power responses, or necessitate certain ways in which drivers are partnered with regards to relative phase, and the compromises of some of those partnerships. I realize there are nearly infinite variables on the matter so I'm really after the most general answer you have, but with as much elaboration as you'd care to give. 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. Bearing in mind that there are waveforms in both music and in nature that have a decidedly polar behavior or measurably asymmetrical response profile (whichever pleases you), do you feel that it is audible, or that the ear/brain system is aware of this potential discrepancy, or that it has any affect whatsoever? This would also apply to any source units that have the option to switch the absolute polarity of the original signal as it leaves said device, en route to the amplifier(s).

Again, this has very little, if anything at all, to do with your above conversation and more to do with satisfying my curiosity of how some individuals feel about certain aspects of audio. I ask because you seem to have enough experience to give such insight and I value it.

FJF, Happy Holidays! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

I would also be very interested to hear anyone else's input on the matter. Sorry to have made it seem exclusive. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[DS-21 10+ year member]

I hate to say it, every audio-political zealot I've ever met followed an identical trail. Not unlike those devoted to a particular religious sect,

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 *** here.

(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.)

Edit: Wait, are you the guy who tried talking to me on DIYMA about a year or two back? I recall quite a few similarities in what was said, along with my telling him [you] that he's [you're] full of shit, too. He was fond of Google, as well. I'm not a big believer in coincidences.

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.

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 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? Presumably you just jumped on this thread to spread your faith-based agenda, not because you actually know something that would be remotely relevant to anyone.