Joe Roberts wrote:

This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of. Or you can listen to circus music on the mighty Wurlizer pipe organ, Planet Drum (hate that fcking record), or the HFN&RR garage door record for bass and dynamics. But what if like me, you really don't fire up orchestra too much. What if I mostly listen to Washboard Sam? I can't agree that a system optimized for orchestral is automatically better for all music. Many traditions stress timbre and tonal color over scale. Even chamber music, which I prefer to grand orchestral, is better served by a speaker that does the color, texture, and sparkle right even if it can't do the cannons in 1812. Frankly, although  technically "easy" by some measures, vocal reproduction is the thing that really captivates me. Here is one area where single drivers can really deliver. And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers. Amazingly, yes. I wish life was so easy that I could be happy with  a pair of Totems...but his only goes to illustrate the point that one man's gourmet meal is another man's Pizza Hut 2 for 1 special. I heard the sales pitch at CES..."Listen to that bass folks, it's clean, it's natural, It's deep, and its precise..."

Joe Roberts wrote:

I feel like I have heard every argument on the planet and I am not getting any new intellectual challenges here.

Joe, it is what you think but it is not what I see.  I do not insist that you shall experience any intellectual challenges in this argument but while expressing your audio view you do clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of some very basic premise of Real Audio. So, I would not mind if you engage some own cerebral help and think about the subject a bit less shallow.

What I am talking about? I am talking about the fact that whatever you practice in audio (at least based upon what you expressed in this thread) I call “External Audio”, or a situation where audio try to create a brainless carbon copy of live sound, using the pointers of live sound properties as evaluation point for “comparing” and contradicting of live sound and reproduced sound. There is nothing prohibitive or anti-constitutional in it, the “hobbyists” are entitled to entertain themselves as they wish. After all, it is better then drinking or collecting baseball cards. Still, it has as much relativity to the tasks of “Another Audio” as the ink squirted by threaten octopuses has a chance to accidently organize itself into Shakespeare’s poems.

Since I recognized that you are not “there” yet I calm down with my interest, as I always do. So you do have in my view some room to grow in your understanding the objectives and methods of audio.  I might refer you to multiple moments at my site but it might not be necessary as I am a firmed believer that the most important things can’t not be taught of “direct delegated” but might be only rediscovered (or as I call it “recomposed”).

Just as the exempla. The simple word “imaging” might have at multiple level of understanding very different definition. For people who practice “External Audio”: Harry Pearson, Jonathan Scull,  Joe Roberts and 99.99999% of your other audio brothers and sisters the word “imaging” means soundstage, or a fandom depicturing of byproduct of phase processing by playback system. At higher level of understanding, the level where awareness of an orchestral conductor operates the “imaging” is an expressive tool of musical intention.  In audio at this level playback is able to demonstrate complex imaging without soundstage. To experience it you would need to go most likely much further then Mirrophonic’s  or Silbatone’s capacity and defiantly much further then juts “gives me pleasure” demands from musicality. At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now.

The point I am trying to make is that the definition of audio success to a high degree is a properly of level of success understanding.  I do not know what you practice personally but in your public appearances, including the one at my site, you demonstrate that audio objectives have very primitive caliber, the fact that you shot into this target for 30 years makes mater not more respectable but more laughable from my point of view. You need to understand that your audio thinning was limited by the fact that your entire public audio endeavor had objective to convince others.  In the “Mein Kampf” it was brilliantly put: “All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.”  That was the Harry Pearson, Jonathan Scull and Joe Roberts level of applications but there is so much more in audio then shooting to the lower common denominator. 

Anyhow, I think you do a good job for Silbatone’s folks but only within the leash that you put on yourself. I do not see a need to argue the subject of single-driver potency here I see the leash. It would be like an attempt to teach an alligator to be a vegetarian – equally un-noble and pointless task.  I think if you looking for an intellectual challenges for yourself in audio them you might start from stopping to recognize yourself as the preverbal Jew who fixed own broken watch was and paid himself $20 for doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good pizza. Unfortunately I won't find one in a Pizzahut. "That" man's 2 for 1 pleasure says a lot about his evaluating capabilities... I also enjoy several different kinds of music, mostly acoustic, but enjoying music and evaluating a system's performance are two completely different tasks.

the fact that you shot into this target for 30 years makes mater not more respectable but more laughable from my point of view.

Tuga wrote:

Joe, Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good pizza. Unfortunately I won't find one in a Pizzahut. "That" man's 2 for 1 pleasure says a lot about his evaluating capabilities... I also enjoy several different kinds of music, mostly acoustic, but enjoying music and evaluating a system's performance are two completely different tasks.

Joe Roberts wrote:

This notion assumes a universal standard. The Pizza Hut listeners were evaluating performance, only by a different standard than you or I use. I am not even sure what it was, but their amazement at the blue mini-towers seemed genuine. I can't always know the goals and I certainly can't and don't need to share everyman's goals, but I can recognize that goals and tastes are indeed individual.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Harry Pearson had the "more evolved" thing going too. Conned a lot of people into listening to things they didn't really like, trying to find their place in heaven.

Romy the Cat wrote:

At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now.

Joe Roberts wrote:

What makes any particular goal higher, beyond the goal-owners high opinon of himself, his own preferences, and his listening acumen?

A valid comment, I have nothing against it. There is however “lower goals”, or the goals that are below the available goals.

This is the old "evolution leads to me" argument, which looks silly when it is recognized that many and perhaps most societies have a similar theory.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Did you actually read 1980s TAS or just thought sniff it? I think I know the answer.

Nope, I did not. I arrived in US in 1992, spoke no English and was able to read cognitively after 1994-95.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Which one captured the musical intention of Muti better? It seems you might say EMI. If this is the case, how could Muti's intention forsee this unnatural 12 mic configuration that yielded the "imaging without soundstage" effect? Wouldn't the simple stereo mic configuration represent what Muti would expect listeners in the seats to hear and possibly be closer to what he himself heard?

It is not accurate example; there are quite a few reasons why. However, the evaluation of what microphoning techniques was better does not lie in audio domain….

Joe Roberts wrote:

Step back and think how obscure and meaningless for most listeners this concept of "external audio" is. This is not a mark of superiority but a sign that you are so far down in the hole that you are not seeing the larger picture of audio experience only the walls of your tunnel. But it is your tunnel and if are comfortable in it, that is what matters.

It is incorrect. I exceptionally well recognize the boundaries of my cave and I also set very precise margins for the content of this site. I for instance do not propose that one cable elevator is better than another just because according to Kurt Gödel’s theory of incompleteness there are “other considerations” that set the value of the first cable elevator to the astronomic heights.

Joe Roberts wrote:

As I mentioned, I have come to be in contact with many audiophiles in my career. The distinction I draw among them is happy ones and ones who are neurotic and suffering. Anything that leads to happiness and enjoyment to me is valid and anything that causes tension and pain is evil. One reason I am "retired" is that I grew weary of the neurotic ones, because I am not cut out to be a shrink. Fortunately, the mindset I tried to promote with Sound Practices allowed me to meet many happy audio pilgrims and these very fulfilling experiences and the joy in working with happy people directly contributed to my philosophy outlined here.

I think you mistyped here. Let me to correct your writing. I think you meant to write the following.

"As I mentioned, I have come to be in contact with many audiophiles in my career. The distinction I draw among them is happy ones and ones who are neurotic and suffering. Anything that leads to happiness and enjoyment to me is valid and anything that causes tension and pain is evil. One reason I am "retired" is that I grew weary of the neurotic ones, because I am not cut out to be a shrink. Fortunately, the mindset I tried to promote with Sound Practices and these very fulfilling experiences and the joy in working with happy people directly contributed to my philosophy.  I returned from my retirement last year after I had my small Aporia orgasm. Before of my Silbatone revelation I was so full with my happiness and enjoyment that I was about to send Anthrax-loaded letters of all subscribes of my Sound Practices. But then the earthshaking Silbatonisation hit me and the Universe flipped upside down in front of my eyes. I never heard anything quite like the Aporia. I shocked me more than the very first set of Ginsu Knives I bought - which is why Aporia interested me. After one week, I was still trying to deconstruct some of the illusions it presented. I could not identify deadly anomalies that ruined the fun in Silbatone’s Sound and my philosophy of sucking-in an enjoyment from a loudspeaker was demonstrating itself with Aporia at its full glory.  I was so impressed that I cut my “Stereo Sound” magazines for toilet papers, sold my Anthrax to Michele Framer, my crossed out from my will my beloved single-legged 12 foot giant lizard and put in there the Josef Manger’s children. The Aporia is an ultimate path to happiness, plus, they look good with oriental rugs. The Aporia is even better then Barrack Obama celebration coin! The sound of Magners is an ultimate remedy from neurotic tendencies and those Korean speakers are  anybody’s ultimate  way to observe the width of cosmos right from the whole of own suffering. Do you know that the Manger’s was discovered in a 12.000-year-old Egyptian tomb? Those prehistoric Egyptian knew that if to connect a Manger driver to a sheep and to rob the sheep's fur then the Manger will produce sound that allowed the listeners to meet many happy pilgrims…."

I can go on but what is the point? BTW, there is an interesting point that you and your Korean friends might get interest in.  It turned out that a friend of my read this thread and informed me that a few years back he invented a driver that has “some” similarity with Manger but it has some very fundamental differences.  According to him his driver is free from any existing Manger design limitation.  It is 100Hz to 20kHz and my it’s nature it is liberated from all know Manger’s issues.

Paul S wrote:

The things I like best about a good wide-range driver are coherence and immediacy: like nothing else I know of, but awareness of the limited range quickly come to the fore.

drdna wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote: At even higher level the “imaging” and “soundstage” merge again but soundstage there become not the soundstage of musical even but a conditional horizon of a listener listening consciousness. There is one even higher level, where the recognition of “imaging” and “soundstage” collapse again and replaced by other things but I do not want to go there now. Romy, I think above you said "soundstage of musical" when I think you meant to say "audio soundstage." Is this correct? If not, then perhaps I did not follow what you were saying; can you please clarify?

Joe Roberts wrote: Did you actually read 1980s TAS or just thought sniff it? I think I know the answer. Nope, I did not. I arrived in US in 1992, spoke no English and was able to read cognitively after 1994-95.

Well check it out before you go slagging on HP, because you might discover that he is, in fact, your DADDY.

The original formulation was a bit tedious but had more thought behind it than what "imaging" and "soundstage" developed into as we know it today in the streets. It sounds very similar in intent to your theory outlined in this thread and as I mentioned the overall evaluation program appears related in very many respects.

In general principles, Real Music = The Absolute Sound. Even those labels are similar.

Nothing new under the sun.

I think you mistyped here. Let me to correct your writing. I meant to write the following.

Keep your day job, Hoss.

It turned out that a friend of my read this thread and informed me that a few years back he invented a driver that has “some” similarity with Manger but it has some very fundamental differences.  According to him his driver is free from any existing Manger design limitation.  It is 100Hz to 20kHz and my it’s nature it is liberated from all know Manger’s issues.

Interesting! The Manger specs are 150-30k so that is not a great improvement, but in the Aporia, the backwave characteristics become important. The Manger backwave is not optimal. If this invention is as flat out the back as out the front, that could be an improvement. Does he have any drivers?

J Rob

Joe,

Joe Roberts wrote:

Interesting! The Manger specs are 150-30k so that is not a great improvement, but in the Aporia, the backwave characteristics become important. The Manger backwave is not optimal. If this invention is as flat out the back as out the front, that could be an improvement. Does he have any drivers?

I do not know that HP use to tell in 80s

Anyhow, I think you probably need to get in touch with him

Joe Roberts wrote:

I do not know that HP use to tell in 80s I know you don't, that's why I seriously suggest you check it out.

tuga wrote:

I once came across this article on Stereo and Phase by JM LeCleach. It has interesting considerations on the subject of imaging

drdna wrote:

Romy, are you not familiar with the early efforts of Harry Pearson? I lived through all of that of course. I hesitate to say it, but it is true. Most of what you are saying is exactly what HP said in his early writings, if you didn't know. He is like your evil twin, or perhaps you are his evil twin . Seriously, though, it would be very much worth your while to read his early stuff, from BEFORE TAS got bogged down by commercial endorsements, etc. You would find it fun. You don't need to be Ramanujan.

Nope, I never know anything about him before mid 90s and frankly speaking considering what I read from him in mid-end 90s, from what my friends told me about him, and from the comment of some people who visited him I never expressed any interest in Harry Pearson. In fact, I was in second part of 90s affected by one Harry Pearson development when he told about the cutting-edge home theaters installations. What I built mine and spent considerable amount efforts to figured out how it works I realized where Mr. Pearson fails in his analysis. Ironically (if to keep the sinister part of the deal aside) he slips at the very same black-ice as Joe does. Joe still does not “get” that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.  I do not know what Harry Pearson advocated in 80s but I know that it was not “it” as this thing is imposable to sell. Anyhow, I doubt that I would be interested to found the TAS from 80s. The right answer are available without any proxies and without anybody’s desire to sell them. I also have no personal interest in Harry’s sinking/writing.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Joe still does not “get” that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not know what Harry Pearson advocated in 80s but I know that it was not “it” as this thing is imposable to sell.

Joe still does not "get" that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.

To summarize the thread, at least what is important - not the Robert’s cheap clownship, I have to admit that I spoke with a number of people, the people who are NOT the “exuberant morons” in my view, who went to CES and heard Silbatone Aporia.  The feedback was from negative to a pure surprise why I even ask about them. Inspire that on the web the industry cheerleaders are trying to trumpet an idiotic kitsch about Aporia and stuffed up sites with cheerful comments but reportedly it has absolutely nothing to with realty. Well how different it from any other audio products that were stupidly drummed up after Hi-Fi shows?

I have to admit that it is not a good idea to judge a loudspeaker based upon somebody else’s comment but I do not judge the loudspeaker but I rather question the gravity of Silbatone intentions that were stuffed into the Aporia.  If the level of Silbatone folks’ interests is similar to the Joe Roberts’ interest then the entire Silbatone product line is unfortunately suitable only for sound reinforcements in Dunkin Donalds. I would be careful with guessing and I have no need to guess but there was 3 contractive and important points dropped in this thread:

1)      An ability to damp or QA the wave-propagation  drivers with pressure reflections

2)      Existence of wave-propagation design concept that has no problem typical for Manger designs with their fjordian wave extinguishing

3)      Disability of the  marketing pumpers of audio industry to sell the idea of a single-driver speakers to anybody who has audio IQ higher then the “targeted  audiophile average”

With all this said, I think the thread turned out to be educational and indicative for a reader who migh have the  Dark Mater between his/her ears.

I have to admit that it is not a good idea to judge a loudspeaker based upon somebody else’s comment

Joe, it you willing to quote me then quote my entire thought but not the out of context taken sound-bites that make you demagogy sealable. I am sorry to say it but you are in uncharted water and you are out of depth.  I am not sure why you are still going, if the keel deep into a dune and the propellers are still spinning then it create nothing but bubbles. Well, creations of bubbles is you specialty and as you said, some dealer and distributors on the deck might smell the stench of burned oil and noise of heavy cavitations  and might bite. I am glad that I was instrumental, and I do not mind. Make sure that the dealer/distributors you pick would not the friends of mine as it would be too ironic to hear from one more time their typical comment: “…the product is crap but thankfully the customers are idiots. BTW, Romy lay off to bitch about this at you site, I have a mortgage to pay.”

Anyway, Joe, I think you need to find another vent to beam your “audio seriousness” to others, from what you have impressed in this thread I am not impressed, moreover, very disappointed. There are plenty audio comminutes who would gladly adapt you, kiss you ass, feed you with the stores that you would like to hear and who help you to demonize the people who consider your view as too light. I too much know all those games to have any inters in them. I am sure that you soon will find your Silbatone Aporia US representative who will take your torch of “schizophrenic hi-fi” and you will shut up until you see a new opportunity to express that psychotic babble of audio practicing.

Tuga,

It is very much NOT about the Point Source. The Point Source is absolutely irrelevant label that was invented by the single driver enthusiasts in order to mentally differentiate their speakers from multi-drivers configuration and in order to justify why some people are not able to integrated multi-drivers. It is like a ship going across an ocean and leaves a water mark behind: one person can design a ship to hit zillion important operational parameters of the ship and another person who is clues about the whole about ship building would design a ship to leave specific water mark. There is no need to ask this person how fast the ship might go, what would be displacement, draft, length, ability break to ice, What would be propulsion system, what would be fuel, people or cargo capacity. Those people will see only that the ship leave the watermarks in the shape of Mogein Dovid and they are ambivalent and immuned to understand anything else.

I think the concept of Point Source itself, as it is being use by single-driver people shell not be used and very many single-driver designs are not proper Point Source. I might endorse the Point Source concept but only form a perspective of actual true mining of the term. Back in my photography time there was a devise: optical bench and one of the attributes of this devise was an optical system the set up the calibration target at infinite distance. Not the 100 times of focal distance of a measured lens but in true infinity (think bout a very powerful inverted binocular). In this setting the dimensions of target have no width and it is just a dot in space. This characteristic is important for some optical measurements. BTW, I was a semi-inventor of a very interesting devise for silver photography that took advantage of many benefits of “Single Point Light Source” in enlargers – it worked very very well, anyhow it is a history… So, why I bring it all up?  Because in my vocabulary I do use the Point Source concept but it has absolutely different meaning then what single-driver people trying to use. When you have a stereo installation and you play (proper) mono material then you playback present sound radiated from a single point directly between the loudspeakers. This is all know and simple BUT the absolute dimensions of this monophonic single point, an ability of the single point to maintain own  minimum dimensions at the stress of different dynamic and frequency ranges and the most important – the mechanisms of evaluating of the single point dimensions is totally different subject and I treat THIS subject with high respect. Generally the smallest single point Sound would be able to collapse itself on mono the better imaging you will have in stereo, but it is not all so simple and there is LOT more to it. Anyhow, that is the definition of Point Source that exists in my vocabulary. The way how the single-driver audio people use terms Point Source ordinary is just the way how they were sold to use the phrase by the stupid audio propaganda and they juts repeat it brainlessly like monkeys.