About users with hidden agendas

You would be better off educating the folks here by explaining how you developed the products you sell and how they can help improve the sound of the reader’s systems.

not really - on his website all he does is demonstrate that he hasn’t got a friggin’ clue what ‘quantum tunnelling’ actually is, but that magic Q word sells stuff..

associating bad pseudo-science with subjectivism only weakens its stance. If your cables sound good, they sound good, no need for fairy tales..

Go Thumper … Go  😎

@cleeds

Do you really sweep all objective thinking members here into your facile little box with “ They pretend to know how things sound without ever actually listening to them”

Are you seriously suggesting that these folk don’t actually listen to their systems on an organic,  corporeal level … Utterly Pathetic

There no proof this guy ted delete thread. It could have been complain from angry guy on this thread. There way too much anger in thread lead me believe there addict here ready come clean and free energy be positive go forward. I hear and we lead exorcism drag angry devil from soul one and for all. I no defend Ted guy he seem maybe little rude people too maybe he come clean too.

@ted_denney

- Well I pick no bones about having an objectivist approach to some things in my system, things I understand (or like to think I understand). I’m not merely stating this to be contentious, I’m sharing a difference of opinion.

Measurements for me and many here, are important metrics, tools if you will, to understand the system (which includes the room). There are some of us here who have taken measurements in order to better understand nodes in their rooms, for example. When narrowing down choices I often inspect the specifications of potential devices and technologies in order to find more suitable solutions.
I’m still learning about room acoustic treatment techniques myself, I’m certainly not discounting the merit of measurement to make informed decisions on how to proceed.

I’m also not excluding the facts that misinformation can be used to sell, using metrics that are isolated from others, to the unsuspecting. For example, a speaker that has it’s crossover designed to cover up resonant frequency nodes in the enclosure, when you sum it’s measurable output, is quite linear, but sounds awful (there is always reasons one metric looks great and yet the synergy fails). Or the handover of frequencies between two drivers, and instead of excluding driver breakup in the frequencies of energies it’s fed, simply mask the issue with the other drivers. Distortion also presents SPL and if that’s summed in as output, another reason to sound awful. A Rubik’s cube is not solved when one, two or three sides appear to be correct and so refining a highly resolving system requires more than good luck.

Clearly understanding an order and hierarchy of measurements as a whole can help to fine tune and correctly re-create optimal outcomes. Trial and error is convenient, understanding the mechanics of how it works synergistically is powerful information, when put to work can yield better performance both in metrics and subjectively, IMO.

@sokogear my brothers and I tried to excel at emulation of the Minister for funny walking, and tried to create new funny walks of our own. The Python boys were bloody marvelous - Bruce!