gedlee said:
I hope that You have kindly accepted my apologies (couple of posts above) for this unhappy misunderstanding?
Can You define those VER in milliseconds?
Can they be those "reflections up to 600uS" (that is 0.6 ms) as suggested by Kantor?
Such a "very early reflections" <600uS are of course not room reflections but are indeed caused by diffraction on any sharp points or edges of the cabinet/loudspeaker.
Watkinson is quite fanatical about eliminating diffraction on cabinet sharp points and edges and in the result his loudspeaker monitor "Celtic Audio Cabar" is perhaps most unusual looking loudspeaker I have ever seen and at the same time it looks like Watkinson doesn't consider room reflections as problematic. Cabar has drivers on its sides. It is active and one-piece system (both channels in one enclosure) just like Swiss Stereolith.
A detail of Cabar can be seen on the cover of his "Art of Sound Reproduction" book: http://www.amazon.com/Art-Sound-Rep...29/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/002-2814333-5712029
Unfortunately webpage of Celtic Audio is down.
best regards,
graaf
"but this is something completely different" [radialstrahler]
It's an interesting, unusual speaker design and it's omni directional.
How is this speaker going to perform in a small room? The manufacturer has no polar graphs that I can see on his site and from the looks of the design such a graph would be very interesting.
A speaker such as this would make small room treatment mandatory would it not? What about the front wall?
"I’m not talking about "the general public" or "Bose enthusiasts" and what They like"
Neither am I.
"I’m talking about most discerning audiophiles and about what they judge as accurate and realistic that is about what was written thousand times of space-recreation abilities of MBL Radiahlstrahler and the likes"
So am I.
"Have You read the "controversial" Toole’s paper or an abstract of it?
I don’t know anything about Toole’s beliefs but the scientific hypotheses he makes public seem to be contradictory with what You believe he believes in."
You lean on one line from an abstract summary of a three hour workshop given at a convention. Get the recording and listen to it and then you tell me how mistaken I am, if I'm mistaken.
http://www.conferencemediagroup.com...etingYear=&showSchedule=&ScrollAction=Page+11
It's a bargain.
There is also a recent paper here:
http://www.aes.org/journal/journal_search.cfm
Volume 54 Number 6 pp. 451-476; June 2006
"All we know now is that "Toole has concluded that normal reflections in a typical small living room seem not to interfere with perception of the recorded space""
Who said this?
Here is a description of Toole's own living room. You will note it has extensive acoustic modification. You will note also how he says was quite dissatisfied with the room as it was originally.
http://www.audiovideointeriors.com/interiorideas/0106toole/
You might also note what he has to say about speakers friendly to most rooms:
"In speaker design, we treat sound above 300 to 400 hertz very differently than sound below this frequency range," says Toole. "If you design a speaker to have a smooth and flat on-axis response above this range, and, if they have relatively constant directivity, speakers become room friendly, increasing the probability that they'll sound good in a wide variety of room spaces."
Note, "relatively constant directivity," which most people would interpret as smoothly falling power response off axis. This is what JBL's studio monitors have
Fortunately a small room friendly to recorded music listening is also friendly to listening to speech. Early reflections can increase the signal to noise ratio of intelligible speech.
It doesn't follow from this that in a small room our psychoacoustic requirements for listening to recorded speech are the same as those for listening to high quality music reproduction.
The smaller and less treated the room, the greater is the requirement for speakers with high directional control.
Moulton:
"How do You know that he "prefers masking" and accepts that musical information is "lost and distorted"?
Well, I was going over the top, as usual, but nevertheless, with his setup and speaker operation, as described, that's what he's going to get. But of course, I don't know how he EQs his system. I browsed through his site and what he prescribes are hard surfaced lateral walls for high specular reflection and a heavy duty broadband absorber behind his speakers (not much different from Geddes) although I also note he says his speakers work better if they're moved away from the walls. But I don't suppose that has anything to do with less loud early reflections and the fat lady's girth, would it? He does say his speakers are about 6 dB down at 180 degrees....
In any case, I couldn't find any polar graphs or anything else which might inform me of what his speakers actually do either on his or the Beolab sites.
So, I'll refine what I said in that summary: The room constrains the speaker design and operation. The speaker response off axis has to fall off smoothly - no nasty mountains and crevasses, no twenty degree off axis responses larger than the 10, etc.
The speakers should not be near the wall:
otherwise the fat lady will be right in the room with you sounding mighty fat and unpleasant, because you need lots of early reflections, but they need to be down several dB relative to the direct sound otherwise you do get masking effects. You can get more freedom with speaker postitioning if they are CD waveguides or horns. Use some extra subs to tame room modes.
If the room is plain Jane the music will sound OK, not great. After that if you want improvement you will need to treat the room.
It's an interesting, unusual speaker design and it's omni directional.
How is this speaker going to perform in a small room? The manufacturer has no polar graphs that I can see on his site and from the looks of the design such a graph would be very interesting.
A speaker such as this would make small room treatment mandatory would it not? What about the front wall?
"I’m not talking about "the general public" or "Bose enthusiasts" and what They like"
Neither am I.
"I’m talking about most discerning audiophiles and about what they judge as accurate and realistic that is about what was written thousand times of space-recreation abilities of MBL Radiahlstrahler and the likes"
So am I.
"Have You read the "controversial" Toole’s paper or an abstract of it?
I don’t know anything about Toole’s beliefs but the scientific hypotheses he makes public seem to be contradictory with what You believe he believes in."
You lean on one line from an abstract summary of a three hour workshop given at a convention. Get the recording and listen to it and then you tell me how mistaken I am, if I'm mistaken.
http://www.conferencemediagroup.com...etingYear=&showSchedule=&ScrollAction=Page+11
It's a bargain.
There is also a recent paper here:
http://www.aes.org/journal/journal_search.cfm
Volume 54 Number 6 pp. 451-476; June 2006
"All we know now is that "Toole has concluded that normal reflections in a typical small living room seem not to interfere with perception of the recorded space""
Who said this?
Here is a description of Toole's own living room. You will note it has extensive acoustic modification. You will note also how he says was quite dissatisfied with the room as it was originally.
http://www.audiovideointeriors.com/interiorideas/0106toole/
You might also note what he has to say about speakers friendly to most rooms:
"In speaker design, we treat sound above 300 to 400 hertz very differently than sound below this frequency range," says Toole. "If you design a speaker to have a smooth and flat on-axis response above this range, and, if they have relatively constant directivity, speakers become room friendly, increasing the probability that they'll sound good in a wide variety of room spaces."
Note, "relatively constant directivity," which most people would interpret as smoothly falling power response off axis. This is what JBL's studio monitors have
Fortunately a small room friendly to recorded music listening is also friendly to listening to speech. Early reflections can increase the signal to noise ratio of intelligible speech.
It doesn't follow from this that in a small room our psychoacoustic requirements for listening to recorded speech are the same as those for listening to high quality music reproduction.
The smaller and less treated the room, the greater is the requirement for speakers with high directional control.
Moulton:
"How do You know that he "prefers masking" and accepts that musical information is "lost and distorted"?
Well, I was going over the top, as usual, but nevertheless, with his setup and speaker operation, as described, that's what he's going to get. But of course, I don't know how he EQs his system. I browsed through his site and what he prescribes are hard surfaced lateral walls for high specular reflection and a heavy duty broadband absorber behind his speakers (not much different from Geddes) although I also note he says his speakers work better if they're moved away from the walls. But I don't suppose that has anything to do with less loud early reflections and the fat lady's girth, would it? He does say his speakers are about 6 dB down at 180 degrees....
In any case, I couldn't find any polar graphs or anything else which might inform me of what his speakers actually do either on his or the Beolab sites.
So, I'll refine what I said in that summary: The room constrains the speaker design and operation. The speaker response off axis has to fall off smoothly - no nasty mountains and crevasses, no twenty degree off axis responses larger than the 10, etc.
The speakers should not be near the wall:
otherwise the fat lady will be right in the room with you sounding mighty fat and unpleasant, because you need lots of early reflections, but they need to be down several dB relative to the direct sound otherwise you do get masking effects. You can get more freedom with speaker postitioning if they are CD waveguides or horns. Use some extra subs to tame room modes.
If the room is plain Jane the music will sound OK, not great. After that if you want improvement you will need to treat the room.
Hey guys, I've been following (most of) this thread and seeing the same old stuff repeated over and over again like a broken record, so I think the best thing to do is to make a conscious decision about what school of thought I/you subscribe to.
If I want loudspeakers in a listening room, then I might as well subscribe to the "miniature world in a goldfish bowl" model.
Theoretically, I could spend $1000s on multiple speakers in large esoteric arrangements, active noise cancellation, 100s of watts of amplification, sound absorption all over the walls and so forth... Or I could accept that the whole point of going down that path is so that I can essentially get a large pair of over-priced "walk in" headphones, with automatic Doppler processing effects that mimic the phase changes caused by moving your head. It could all be done far more cheaply and effectively using a real pair of headphones, modded with accelerometers/tilt switches (or something along that line), digital post-processing and maybe some fake reverb for extra listening pleasure
A bit silly, eh?
By trying to look at the bigger picture (what does your speaker system actually represent??) I can actually choose "prettying the small goldfish bowl" instead of going on a wild goose chase.
If I want loudspeakers in a listening room, then I might as well subscribe to the "miniature world in a goldfish bowl" model.
Theoretically, I could spend $1000s on multiple speakers in large esoteric arrangements, active noise cancellation, 100s of watts of amplification, sound absorption all over the walls and so forth... Or I could accept that the whole point of going down that path is so that I can essentially get a large pair of over-priced "walk in" headphones, with automatic Doppler processing effects that mimic the phase changes caused by moving your head. It could all be done far more cheaply and effectively using a real pair of headphones, modded with accelerometers/tilt switches (or something along that line), digital post-processing and maybe some fake reverb for extra listening pleasure
A bit silly, eh?
By trying to look at the bigger picture (what does your speaker system actually represent??) I can actually choose "prettying the small goldfish bowl" instead of going on a wild goose chase.
VER, to me, are less than about 5 ms. In the < 2ms. region we found that the VER would actually sound like nonlinear distortion, and are highly dependent on absolute SPL, but also muck up the image. At greater than about 2 ms. the effects transition more to coloration than image. At about 10 ms. the negative effects of reflections begins to go away and by 20 ms. the reflections become positive being perceived as "spaciousness", reverb, etc.
I think that FrankWW and I are on the same page.
I also think that Ceramicman has a point. Lets figure that we are talking about two channels, three at most, because thats the source material that we have to live with, and that spending tens of thousands of dollars on speakers, etc. is not within our budget. Headphones do not allow for good Home Theater presentation.
I think that FrankWW and I are on the same page.
I also think that Ceramicman has a point. Lets figure that we are talking about two channels, three at most, because thats the source material that we have to live with, and that spending tens of thousands of dollars on speakers, etc. is not within our budget. Headphones do not allow for good Home Theater presentation.
The audio industry is like a broken record. Otherwise why would people try to revive the LP system by presenting more such players dispite the obviouse technical limit?CeramicMan said:
I think basic objectives of a speaker in a small room would be to use the least number of drivers in a smallest practical enclosure to create the most bandwidth, best dynamics, that has the least interaction with the room.
FrankWW said:
Look at various demonstration rooms, manufacturer's included, and judge for Yourself:
http://images.google.pl/images?hl=pl&q=MBL+101E&gbv=2
Well, how can possibly horizontal polar response of a omnidirectional design look alike?
Louspeakers such as MBL 101E are BY DESIGN laterally off axis the same as on axis. This is what their omnidirectionality is all about - laterally off axis the same as on axis.
As I wrote earlier in this thread I haven’t got acces to the original presentation
I can browse internet and find it but unfortunately I haven’t got an American credit card
Therefore I have asked those who have it and especially those who are AES-members or just act like being "a very smart guy" or "experienced experts" on what points is the abstract of the paper wrong i.e. not consistent wiht the abstracted paper?
And the answer I get is – "go and buy the paper".
And that is really arrogant
Because I expect You people have it laying on Your bookshelves! At least You should because You are so authoritative in what You are saying.
You just seem to know very well every research done, that particular included.
- the author of an abstract of Toole’s presentation (and normally it is the author of the scientific paper himself, normally it's his duty to prepare an abstract) - please prove that this abstract is wrong!
Let mi cite You: "Who said this?" And where?
How can You be so authoritative?
or perhaps You are just going over the top again?
"He is going to"? How can You be so sure? "Who said this?"
that is correct
Where does he say that? I would be happy to see this statement in its context.
They are 6 dB down at 180 degrees off axis and not 90 degrees
They are 6 dB down at their back because the acoustic lense is so designed - Moulton says that lateral side reflections are beneficial but apparently not necessarily reflection from behind the loudspeakers
Laterally the 90 degrees left and right off axis they are absolutely THE SAME AS ON AXIS. Please don’t ask me "Who said this?" Because it is obvious. They are such by design a priori. This is what omnidirectionality is all about - laterally off axis the same as on axis.
well well well
What a strange situation in this thread. I seems that everybody not being Dr Geddes or somebody "on the same page" simply HAS TO BE wrong
Moulton is simply "incorrect"
MBL and the likes obviously don’t know what HiFi is all about stupendously preferring "masking and distortion" and "not showing polar responses"
Stereolith is simply ignored
Harold Beveridge is simply ignored
John Watkinson is simply ignored,
Linkwitz’s omnidirectional Pluto project is ignored
Stig Carlsson is ignored (after all "who is that?" "where is this "Sweden""?)
Dr Toole is ok. BUT ONLY when "he and Geddes did their research" which made everything clear (citing - that is why "Geddes" and not respectable "Dr Geddes")
but when one of Dr Toole’s papers is probably suggesting something different - answer is "We have not looked up Dr. Tooles papers" or "go, buy it yourself and prove We are wrong"
O my! So You haven’t read it yet?
You don’t know what’s in there?
Then for God sake what sort of an experts "educating poor uniformed" on the subject of small rooms You are?
What an arrogance!
That is really something beyond me!
Is this arrogance everything what "Dr" and an "expert" in USA is all about?
Well, I also have an academic background and I’m on my way to become a PhD before the end of 2007. But here in Europe We understand that if You demand to be treated as an expert and with "PhD due respect" You should behave as an expert and a PhD and not to treat laymen asking questions as biased uninformed annoying intruders.
Below is a quote from "official AES abstract" taken from http://www.aes.org/journal/journal_search.cfm
Abstract like that is normally prepared by the author himself
And here is what Toole is saying (CAPITALICS are mine):
Dear most respectable Dr Toole, what "gaps in our understanding" are You speaking of?!
Here at diyaudio.com Mr FrankWW knows no "gaps in understanding". Everything is "correct" and known for sure - everything "is" and nothing "seems to be".
All others are wrong and going to get "masking and distortion"
And what "future research"?! All research is done "by You and Dr Geddes"! Did You forget?
Dr Toole, You’d better go and ask Mr FrankWW!
Just taking the small speaker shown in my avatar as an example, it was designed for a small room with a goal not to take up too much room, trying to excite certain low frequency room modes to help extend lower frequency. Largest room in mind with that design was 4MX6M for bacground listeing. expected listening distance 2M~3M for serous listening.gedlee said:
In order to accomplish this with a small driver, a few things were considered:
1. Driver placement to minimize diffraction effects.
2. Shallow depth to keep the baffle as close to the wall as possible allowing half sphere radiation to get as much punch out of the driver as possible.
3. BLH direction excites certain room modes easier.
Through various listing sessions, I discovered that as much as I tried to minimize diffraction, sound absorption on the back wall was still critical to obtain better image and stage depth. Solid back wall structure (concrete) was necessary to maximize bass.
Improvements are still evolving, but it's always interesting to just select a size that seems to be noticable in a room, but stays out of the way, and see how good it can get using whatever knowledge applicable.
I also have some 180 degree design that I'm trying to get good enough. Really tough and expensive to do.
Currently, I think size is dominated by driver selection, I'll be back with some thoughts on this.
CeramicMan said:It could all be done far more cheaply and effectively using a real pair of headphones, modded with accelerometers/tilt switches (or something along that line), digital post-processing and maybe some fake reverb for extra listening pleasure
A bit silly, eh?
FWIW, Sony made a pair of headphones that did exactly this: as you moved your head, it updated the modelled HRTF so that it tried to replicate speaker listening. It could also throw in the fake reverb du jour.
It really sounded awful (we had a pair for a couple years), and I think the issues were one of practicality as much as just implementation. To do this right, you really need to load your own HRTFs in there to make it accurate, and its extremely hard to not have calibration for "forward' wander off (maybe a highly accurate GPS is needed?
I think we're stuck with speakers for a while longer.
Coming back to the subject of re-radiation of back sound through the cone, I haven't found much litterature, so may I suggest one way of measuring it :
- feed one full range loudspeaker with pink noise (emitter)
- place the loudspeaker under test (DUT) at a reasonnably large distance from the emitter. Large distance means large compared to DUT loudspeakers dimensions, ie 4m.
- connect the DUT loudspeaker on a working amplifier but with no signal (so to benefit from electric damping)
- have one microphone just in front of the DUT
- have one microphone inside of the DUT
- mesure and compare the signals from both microphones, it should give an idea of the transmission attenuation of the cone
Anything wrong or missing ?
Because if we have a value of the transmission attenuation, it is easy to simulate it , listen if
- feed one full range loudspeaker with pink noise (emitter)
- place the loudspeaker under test (DUT) at a reasonnably large distance from the emitter. Large distance means large compared to DUT loudspeakers dimensions, ie 4m.
- connect the DUT loudspeaker on a working amplifier but with no signal (so to benefit from electric damping)
- have one microphone just in front of the DUT
- have one microphone inside of the DUT
- mesure and compare the signals from both microphones, it should give an idea of the transmission attenuation of the cone
Anything wrong or missing ?
Because if we have a value of the transmission attenuation, it is easy to simulate it , listen if
NASA had a division that spun off which did something similar. My think it's not possible for calculate an accurate HRTF at such speed necessary for good fidelity, plus the real time kernal also needs to operate jitter free.DDF said:
FWIW, Sony made a pair of headphones that did exactly this: as you moved your head, it updated the modelled HRTF so that it tried to replicate speaker listening. It could also throw in the fake reverb du jour.
It really sounded awful (we had a pair for a couple years), and I think the issues were one of practicality as much as just implementation. To do this right, you really need to load your own HRTFs in there to make it accurate, and its extremely hard to not have calibration for "forward' wander off (maybe a highly accurate GPS is needed?
I think we're stuck with speakers for a while longer.
Each speaker really should be designed with some room size range in mind. If large drivers are used in a small room, reflective pressure waves can effect performance at high volume playback. For smallish rooms, good full range drivered speakers normally are good. Taking into consideration of cone material technology, I think a good 6" full range driver is possible. Larger than this, cone breakup modes become hard to deal with. Once the driver is selected, the size is probably also defined.
For larger rooms where listening distance may be further away, more drivers might be needed to get the dynamics, this is where more drivers and two way speakers come in. I would just add something like a wooffer to increase low frequency driving capability and sharing some load below 400Hz. Selection of the woofer would at least be able to output the same mazimum SPL as the high frequency unit.
The next step up would be adding a tweeter/super tweeter to increase the thigh frequency and share more power load to form a three way system.
Anything larger might require multiple drivers in the same spectrum range, and the design gets really complicated.
Whether speakers are designed to be out of the way or located far from walls are also critical design decisions, and users should be aware of such constraints as well.
For larger rooms where listening distance may be further away, more drivers might be needed to get the dynamics, this is where more drivers and two way speakers come in. I would just add something like a wooffer to increase low frequency driving capability and sharing some load below 400Hz. Selection of the woofer would at least be able to output the same mazimum SPL as the high frequency unit.
The next step up would be adding a tweeter/super tweeter to increase the thigh frequency and share more power load to form a three way system.
Anything larger might require multiple drivers in the same spectrum range, and the design gets really complicated.
Whether speakers are designed to be out of the way or located far from walls are also critical design decisions, and users should be aware of such constraints as well.
Let's not waste too much time on this thread considering what is probably a very minor and OT issue.
Perhaps and easier way to test for the attenuation of internally reflected signal would be something I read that Steve Deckert has done.
Providing that the enclosure is large enough for it to fit, place a small battery operated radio inside the box, and "test" by listening to the difference in volume levels with and without the driver installed. Of course that doesn't answer the question, " OK, what now?"
My real concern was that the physical properties of some drivers (i.e. cone material composition / thickness, motor assembly profiles, frame construction, etc), as well as enclosure designs will clearly render some systems more susceptible to "bleed -through" of internally reflected waves. It seems to me that these very early reflections, if of sufficient amplitude, can result in severe intermodulation of the musical signal, while it is still leaving the box.
A theoretical perfect transmission line would absorb 100% of these backwaves, therefore no problem? But in the real world ......
Short of major redesign and/or treatment to the cavities and internal reflective surfaces of the actual drivers, dealing with their contribution to the problem is probably outside of the control of the average (cautious) DIY speaker builder. However, selective treatment to cone, external driver frame/magnet surfaces, and careful enclosure design should be able to mitigate the problem.
Rethm performs some very interesting "extreme makeovers" to Lowther drivers for use in their systems.
The question is how much is too much?
Perhaps and easier way to test for the attenuation of internally reflected signal would be something I read that Steve Deckert has done.
Providing that the enclosure is large enough for it to fit, place a small battery operated radio inside the box, and "test" by listening to the difference in volume levels with and without the driver installed. Of course that doesn't answer the question, " OK, what now?"
My real concern was that the physical properties of some drivers (i.e. cone material composition / thickness, motor assembly profiles, frame construction, etc), as well as enclosure designs will clearly render some systems more susceptible to "bleed -through" of internally reflected waves. It seems to me that these very early reflections, if of sufficient amplitude, can result in severe intermodulation of the musical signal, while it is still leaving the box.
A theoretical perfect transmission line would absorb 100% of these backwaves, therefore no problem? But in the real world ......
Short of major redesign and/or treatment to the cavities and internal reflective surfaces of the actual drivers, dealing with their contribution to the problem is probably outside of the control of the average (cautious) DIY speaker builder. However, selective treatment to cone, external driver frame/magnet surfaces, and careful enclosure design should be able to mitigate the problem.
Rethm performs some very interesting "extreme makeovers" to Lowther drivers for use in their systems.
The question is how much is too much?
Oh dear! For heaven's sake! Let's be clear about a couple of things.
I'm an amateur. Because I like to listen to music a lot, I've been fooling around with audio stuff for more than forty years, but I'm an amateur. This means most, but not all, of what I know I've learned empirically.
Yes, I know, I'm intellectually arrogant, and it's unlikely I'm going to change this late in life.
That said, you want me to respond to every direction of your interest and I want to move in the direction of my interest.
Now, you want access to JAES proceedings and Journal. What I did in the 1960's was go to the Library. (It's a matter of some frustration for me that my local university library does not hold it - at least it didn't the last time I looked). There is at least one library in your country that holds it
http://www.nukat.edu.pl/katalog/
The last couple of years of this library's holdings of JAES appear to be non-paper holdings. You might get direct access from your university library or you know or can find somebody who does. Perhaps even get it through interlibrary loan. I could always find some prof who would let me use his/her library privileges to follow my interests.
People in your country do buy stuff from N America over the internet - how do they arrange it?
Look, what I want is performance which is much better than OK but short of perfection - I want good enough for me. Unusual speakers which cost more than I can afford which the manufacturers don't document to my satisfaction just aren't very interesting to me. Leaving aside my self interest, they (eg, B&O and MBL) should document them very thoroughly just because the designs are so unusual looking. But they don't.
I've been working very hard and I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post right now. I'll perhaps have time in a couple of days.
I'm an amateur. Because I like to listen to music a lot, I've been fooling around with audio stuff for more than forty years, but I'm an amateur. This means most, but not all, of what I know I've learned empirically.
Yes, I know, I'm intellectually arrogant, and it's unlikely I'm going to change this late in life.
That said, you want me to respond to every direction of your interest and I want to move in the direction of my interest.
Now, you want access to JAES proceedings and Journal. What I did in the 1960's was go to the Library. (It's a matter of some frustration for me that my local university library does not hold it - at least it didn't the last time I looked). There is at least one library in your country that holds it
http://www.nukat.edu.pl/katalog/
The last couple of years of this library's holdings of JAES appear to be non-paper holdings. You might get direct access from your university library or you know or can find somebody who does. Perhaps even get it through interlibrary loan. I could always find some prof who would let me use his/her library privileges to follow my interests.
People in your country do buy stuff from N America over the internet - how do they arrange it?
Look, what I want is performance which is much better than OK but short of perfection - I want good enough for me. Unusual speakers which cost more than I can afford which the manufacturers don't document to my satisfaction just aren't very interesting to me. Leaving aside my self interest, they (eg, B&O and MBL) should document them very thoroughly just because the designs are so unusual looking. But they don't.
I've been working very hard and I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post right now. I'll perhaps have time in a couple of days.
FrankWW said:
absolutely NOT AT ALL
I do not want You to do anything
perhaps my post was to emotional, it is partly a matter of my weak writing English skills, I apologize!
and You were not the only addressee of my comments, I think it is clear, the addressee was more general - everyone writing here in an expert fashion, as "knowlegable person"
and the truth is I have never expected responses to "every" of those "directions".
I have thrown so much of them (but there is more!) here in hope that perhaps one or two will get response.
After all we have "experts" here and this thread has been declared to be educational.
Well, it seems that the truth is (old) "knowledge has its price" and internet forums are no exception
Is all that we can have here either an amateur small talk or a marketing in disguise?
The answer seems to be in the affirmative.
thank You very much!
Indeed I didn't know that they have it in Gdansk
I would like to make it clear that is certainly not my intention to force any discussion
best regards,
graaf
I wonder how do we distinguish amateur small talk from proffessional talk? I would think taking some specific projects into discussion shows more professionalism. Generalization seem to be more political. Maybe we should just assume a virtual project and start some in depth discussions? Any takers?graaf said:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.