The change in avatar is just a phase I'm going through. Much to my surprise, those little things sound better than I expected. The looks, you are right, it is not my design, but the general idea was what I was expecting. Those are an geometrically asymmetric pair of speakers.bear said:
On the ALE drivers, what is FRP edge?? What material?
Any images of their innards??
For that money I can build you a lot of them... seriously.
But anyway as mentioned the 555 will go up to 8-10khz alright... I think the throat size and geometry is going to be the limiting factor.
Suggest you just build yourself a very large horn or some expansion with L'Clerc'h lips and enjoy the listening, live with the few compromises that represents... of course the choice of compression driver is critical. (a subject for another day/thread).
Soongsc, you changed ur avatar - NG!! It's not "you"! Before your posts were instantly recognizable, not anymore...
I disagree with the assessments regarding the imaging and presentation of large horns, or horns in general. The setup in all regards is critical, so the results reported so far (imho) are not endemic to the horn as much as the design/setup in particular.
In any properly set up system, the speakers presence in the room seems to be questionable, and perhaps they ought to be removed so that they don't block any sound??
Or, as I often tell people, if you hear tweeters then something is wrong! (for example)
_-_-bear
The LeCleach expansion seems more suited for longer wave lengths. I'm going to research this a bit more later on. Also need to figure out how to align two horns for good transient response, and still have a unique and sylish look, and also hope to sound better than other designs.
It seems that some balance between loading and directivity control might be a better balance in real room application.
markus76 said:
100% YEs, You really do not see this? I have posted many times that MOST owners of speaker companies are not posting online that "Other" options suck and only their products are far superior to any thing that exists out there today.
Read online posts all over the internet from the likes of John Janowitz, Jim Salk, Mark Seaton, Rick Craig, Curt Campbell and the list goes on and on.
I can see a HUGE difference.
Personally, if Geddes didnt talk down to people like me I would have bought his speakers before now. Instead I dropped $2K on other drivers and similar projects. So yes he lost me as a customer because of how he treats potential customers.
NOTE: I still support the fact that his designs make sense and his speakers are probably amazing (I have not heard them).
I know! I want the old soonsgc avatar back, too. All the avatar changing drives me crazy.
As for the Ale drivers, never heard, but have a good buddy who has. He built an amp that is mids in a running a GIANT system in Cyprus. Mulit-horn from the ground up, bass horns extend quite a ways out of the house. All compression drivers. Very impressive photos. ALE drivers. (Or were they GOTO? oops!)
As for the Ale drivers, never heard, but have a good buddy who has. He built an amp that is mids in a running a GIANT system in Cyprus. Mulit-horn from the ground up, bass horns extend quite a ways out of the house. All compression drivers. Very impressive photos. ALE drivers. (Or were they GOTO? oops!)
Yep, that's pretty much it.
doug20 said:
My reaction to all this is quite the opposite. Besides the fact that Dr. Geddes has never talked down to me and always been more than willing to answer my questions in ways that made perfect sense (often not true with at least a few of the people you have mentioned), I find that they too get annoyed and defensive when their products are attacked. I also find his brutal honesty refreshing, and not at all inconcsistent with my experience of the market. Certain aspects of his designs, research, claims, etc. do indicate to me that, if he is right, most everyone else is wrong.
In other words, I bought his speakers for exactly the reason you apparently did not. Many if not most of the most brilliant researchers in my field who I have met do not have the best social skills. In many cases I rack it up to this, while I may not love being talked down to, these people are the authorities on the subject, I am not. I've heard open forum discussions in academic conferences where very prominent researchers get to a point where they practically are calling each other idiots in more appropriate academic language. I think that even I have been involved in this in different ways, and I can completely understand why. After spending a lot of time and (potentially) money, collecting data, analyzing it, coming to solid conclusions based on solid methods, it's frustrating to have others, even other authorities on the subject, argue with your findings when they themselves have not gone through the same rigor in your specific topic. Worse yet is when someone with no academic background or research experience in your field argues with your conclusions. How can you not (after trying to calmly and rationally explain reality to them) become annoyed and respond with "what do you know." I think his demeanor on these forums is understandable, and I'm confident I would act in much the same way if I was in his shoes.
doug20 said:
My e-mail exchanges with him were actually what sealed the deal for me. Got answers to every question and suggestions for better methods when the answers weren't exactly what I wanted to hear. On the various forums, Earl is often on the receiving end of what I assume feel like attacks (some are, some are not). That probably sours the tone of all his responses quite a bit.
markus76 said:
The angle is going to be dependent upon the distance back from the tip of the triangle as well as the horizontal distance between the speakers. The horizontal distance defines the dimensions of the triangle, the listeners position relative to the tip of the triangle defines the off-axis angle, correct?
The stereo triangle is defined by a equilateral triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilateral_triangle).
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
Right, and if you were sitting at the apex of that triangle you would be on-axis to both speakers. Move a foot back and you are slightly off axis. The dimension of the triangle is defined by the horizontal distance between the speakers (as they are the only two real points). The dimension of the triangle in turn defines your movement off-axis in degrees for a given distance back from the apex.
2 feet back from the apex of a triangle with 4 foot sides is substantially different than 2 feet back from the apex of a triangle with 12 foot sides.
pjpoes said:
The question wasn't if Earl's behavior was enhancing his market, but rather if it was detracting from it. BIG difference commercially.
On the other hand the question of market enhancement is *also* interesting.
How can you be annoyed and not respond in a negative manner? That is pretty much taught from early childhood (what is and isn't socially acceptable). Of course every one will display varying levels of success here. The negative demeanor may at times be understandable (largely depending on the person who is "understanding"), but that doesn't mean that they are or should be excusable.
Note however that all of that relates to basic social skills. There are however *added*requirements AND impetus (money) for the "commercial world". In other words a representative's social skills need to generally be substantially better in this respect whenever any representation may effect commerce. *Most* customers EXPECT this (..a well proven fact). It could largely be considered as *extremely deferential* treatment.
With this basic understanding the representative needs to ask the questions (in order):
1. Is my behavior being deemed by customers/potential customers as representative of the enterprise?
2. Is so, is my behavior extremely deferential?
3. If not, what do I need to do to make it extremely deferential?
markus76 said:
You said you were 15° off-axis because of a 45° toe in. Then Josh said it depends on where you sit. You then replied "why".
I'm trying to illustrate that the triangle we create by toeing the speakers in 45° does not guarantee that one will be sitting at a 15° angle in any given circumstance. It depends on the horizontal distance between the speakers and then the distance back from the apex of the isosceles triangle (formed by the crossing of the on axis lines).
In my case the triangle formed by the listening position and the speakers is not an equilateral triangle. I'm roughly 11-12 feet from the speakers while they are about 8 feet from one another, toed in at 45°. So I am further than 15° off axis, because of where I sit.
If my napkin math is right, that puts me at 67.5° off the axis of the wall (67.5-45=22.5) so close to 22.5° off axis.
markus76 said:
JoshK said:
markus76 said:
amiklos said:
That sounds like very good marketing on the e-mail exchanges.
I think you are correct - that attacks or perceived attacks, can substantially increase the difficulty *IF RESPONDING*, to maintain deferential treatment.
The problem here is that Earl "sets him-self up" to defend various positions that often come across to readers as absolutes. (..worse still, absolutes that many disagree with.)
Good Marketing *never* does this.
If some company uses the slogan: "Best Loudspeaker on Earth. Period." They specifically do NOT respond to request for proof, rather they provide some data (in support or not), and let the customers make their own decision. It may *appear* as if they are making a claim that needs to be defended, but in fact that is not at all the case, rather the slogan is simply a "marketing hook".
Actually placing yourself in a position to defend is tantamount to placing yourself in a position to FAIL, no matter how correct you might think you are, and no matter how much, or how good your proof is.
scott, it was my point that his behavior, which you and some others claim dettered a sale, created one for me, and I believe some others as well.
as I've mentioned before, I am a social scientist. My area of expertise happens to be in child development (Children's development of academic skills and social competence to be most exact). I've met with representative's of computer program companies who specialize in software for my field. The people with the type of social skills you look for tend to be the sales reps, understandably so. However, unfortunately for them, they aren't experts in our field or their product. They can answer basic questions about functionality, but when dealing with PhD or near PhD level users of their products, our understanding of the software functionality and math involved is far greater than theirs, and they are of little to no use to us. They know this, so often the actual software engineers are on hand. It has been my experience that they have what you would characterize as fairly poor social skills. They don't take kindly to attacks on their work, will attempt to baffle you with brilliance (doesn't work with this audience), and often attempt to explain any problems you are having as due to your lack of expertise in computers or programs (rightly so in some cases). Dr. Geddes is more of a scientist or engineer than a salesemen, and his behavior is consistent with that, it's exactly what I'm used to. However, he doesn't try to baffle me with brilliance, is more than willing to explain things to me when they aren't going as I expected. I don't have anywhere near the expertise in the audio field that I do in social sciences or statistics, but I've still expressed what I "knew to be true." I've always appreciated his willingness to dispel any myths I held to be true. I think the problem is that others don't agree with him, and don't like his willingness to do that. However, I look at him more as a teacher (A professor at that) rather than a sales representative. This is something few other companies sales reps also are.
as I've mentioned before, I am a social scientist. My area of expertise happens to be in child development (Children's development of academic skills and social competence to be most exact). I've met with representative's of computer program companies who specialize in software for my field. The people with the type of social skills you look for tend to be the sales reps, understandably so. However, unfortunately for them, they aren't experts in our field or their product. They can answer basic questions about functionality, but when dealing with PhD or near PhD level users of their products, our understanding of the software functionality and math involved is far greater than theirs, and they are of little to no use to us. They know this, so often the actual software engineers are on hand. It has been my experience that they have what you would characterize as fairly poor social skills. They don't take kindly to attacks on their work, will attempt to baffle you with brilliance (doesn't work with this audience), and often attempt to explain any problems you are having as due to your lack of expertise in computers or programs (rightly so in some cases). Dr. Geddes is more of a scientist or engineer than a salesemen, and his behavior is consistent with that, it's exactly what I'm used to. However, he doesn't try to baffle me with brilliance, is more than willing to explain things to me when they aren't going as I expected. I don't have anywhere near the expertise in the audio field that I do in social sciences or statistics, but I've still expressed what I "knew to be true." I've always appreciated his willingness to dispel any myths I held to be true. I think the problem is that others don't agree with him, and don't like his willingness to do that. However, I look at him more as a teacher (A professor at that) rather than a sales representative. This is something few other companies sales reps also are.
Scott,
The only thing I'd add is that in my experience two or more parties disagreeing, yet each vigorously defending their positions because they believe they are right, often yields the most thorough examination of a given subject. The assumption here is that the parties are reasonably open minded despite their convictions, and perhaps that some more moderate force exists to push dialog in a constructive direction.
These are only my experiences in my field, which is technical but often also quite political. Marketing is certainly not a concern behind closed doors. We dress up the results (and the story of how we got there) after the fact for public consumption.
It seems to go without saying that perception is reality in a venue such as this.
The only thing I'd add is that in my experience two or more parties disagreeing, yet each vigorously defending their positions because they believe they are right, often yields the most thorough examination of a given subject. The assumption here is that the parties are reasonably open minded despite their convictions, and perhaps that some more moderate force exists to push dialog in a constructive direction.
These are only my experiences in my field, which is technical but often also quite political. Marketing is certainly not a concern behind closed doors. We dress up the results (and the story of how we got there) after the fact for public consumption.
It seems to go without saying that perception is reality in a venue such as this.
markus76 said:
Ah, but there is a *big* difference between deference and submission.
Deference: showing respect; an attempt to be held in higher regard.
Submissive: humble obedience.
The classic phrase: "the customer is always correct",
..is what most customers expect initially.
A good representative *never* says "you are not correct", rather they explain in a manner the customer can understand how they probably aren't correct, and then provide solutions. (..which appears to be on par with Earl's e-mail correspondence.)
In the Geddes recommended alignment, the listener is outside the triangle; the speakers are cross-fired in front. He EQs at 22.5°. Draw it up, and it's easy to see what's going on.
I observed earlier that Earl's no fun 'til you get past his "persona." I certainly don't have to remind anyone that he has an intended purpose here, though we do lose sight from time to time. To get at the truth, we have to look through that, as well....
I observed earlier that Earl's no fun 'til you get past his "persona." I certainly don't have to remind anyone that he has an intended purpose here, though we do lose sight from time to time. To get at the truth, we have to look through that, as well....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.