Audio-Talk - Where is it? Where is it going?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well you selected the good bits and rejected the daft bits, so who is the clever man.

I have explained why I reacted the way I did and will continue to do so when faced with such over complicated stupidity in front of me on my screen in future. Remember it is just my opinion, but my opinion is PROVABLE which I keep trying to do with no take up and no success.

The last few pages with him was just insult tennis, he wanted to play it so I hit the ball back until I got bored with it, but he carries it on.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well you selected the good bits and rejected the daft bits, so who is the clever man.

I have explained why I reacted the way I did and will continue to do so when faced with such over complicated stupidity in front of me on my screen in future. Remember it is just my opinion, but my opinion is PROVABLE which I keep trying to do with no take up and no success.

The last few pages with him was just insult tennis, he wanted to play it so I hit the ball back until I got bored with it, but he carries it on.

AND do you really think the Mets things are better than a pair of Cubes, and Moose would throw his hands up in horror at them. Easy to find out, do you want a bake-off.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

It needed derailing because it was a load of bollocks.

Says who, exactly? And why does that person think that their opinion is more important than that of other people?

Says ME who do you bloody think.

Scott is going nowhere.

Classic bit of your selective twisting. My answer was to the bit up to the question mark - "Says who, exactly?" answer "Says Me who do you bloody think" so you add the rest which had nothing to do with my answer to change the meaning of it - you are a sick man Moose.

[Scottmoose]

Consecutive direct verbatim quotes Richard. No more, no less.

[Cressy Snr]

AND do you really think the Mets things are better than a pair of Cubes... Easy to find out, do you want a bake-off.

I don't think the OmniMets are better than a pair of cubes. Why would that have even entered my head? It would however be interesting to see how similar (or not) the OmniMet presentation is to a different type of semi-omni. A benchmarking exercise if you like, see where I am, where I need to go etc. There's always room for improvement and all that.

[ed]

why does stuff have to be better than other stuff?
I think we've been here before, nobody could define better
I seem to remember boring the tits off everybody preaching about how stuff was different, which led to different levels of enjoyment...and everyone had a different take on what was more enjoyable.

better? I say poo!

[Scottmoose]

I don't think Scott is going anywhere Dave. Knowing him, I suspect that the more flak he gets, the more he will dig his heels in.
He knows what's what and thats a fact. He saw the potential of my 2006 ragbag of ideas about two direction tapering Voigt pipes, pulled them into line, and the rest is history. You have the ultimate expression of that design collaboration, plus Colin's build quality, playing in your living room now.
He didn't have much to do with the OmniMets, but without that groundwork with the straight up Mets, he helped me to perfect, the folded ones could not have been developed to such a fab level of sound quality.

Not in the least, Steve. I wouldn't dream of claiming any connection to / credit for your OmniMets. The work is yours alone, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing them. And you overstate my contribution to the Metronome in general. The concept was yours alone; if I gave you anything it was simply a few pointers re volume requirements and mass-loading the terminus to remove some unwanted harmonics.

AND do you really think the Mets things are better than a pair of Cubes,

Steve never suggested anything of the kind Richard, and since they are completely different other than in broad configuration of a forward-firing tweeter & upward firing midbass driver, comparisons would be specious. The quality of the drivers and enclosure design however are excellent (albeit presumably more complex than your NVA product).

and Moose would throw his hands up in horror at them. Easy to find out, do you want a bake-off.

You forget Steve is a friend of mine Richard. I know well what he is capable of and as I have said on a number of occasions, I am looking forward to hearing them. As for 'horror', you also forget I design filterless single-driver speakers, speakers which happen to have physically simple crossovers, and even a few semi-Omni designs, which are in fact on this forum. So no 'throw[ing] up of hands in horror at them.' Why would there be?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Well i can tell you one thing for certainty, your new ones are a lot more Doc than Moose. You know that, shall I list

1/ no wadding
2/ doped bass mid
3/ no crossover on bass mid
4/ driver position as per Cubes
5/ simple crossover / protection on tweeter

so what do you have, a speaker that plays music and doesn't fight the room. So what is Moose in them.

I didn't bring this up PER USUAL I AM RESPONDING!!!

[Scottmoose]

Metronomes, last I checked Richard:

1/ Don't use wadding (a bit of lining as appropriate only, usually determined by Steve)
2/ Use whatever driver people want, doped or otherwise
3/ Almost never have any crossover, since they are typically used with wideband drivers, other than a cap & resistor for a supertweeter
4/ The driver location is offset from the throat (sealed end) of the pipe / horn, ergo is functionally different to your cubes
5/ See 3/ above.

As clearly stated, I have zero connection to the OmniMetronomes, and peripheral only with the Metronome. They are Steve's work alone. Nobody else's.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You are not going to drag me into insult tennis again, I know you now so I don't want to know you. You have a closed mind, I really can't be bothered to try and penetrate it. Keep designing you daft crossovers, and if I ever see one of your project that isn't daft I will say so. BUT it is of course JUST MY OPINION!!!

[Cressy Snr]

Well yes, Richard but there is wadding in them. There is a small amount at the narrow end of the resonator, where the energy from the driver is the greatest. Transmission lines can't do without it. But apart from that, you are right, there is no other treatment in them.

The driver is not doped, you are mixing it up with the one in the big Mets that Dave has. That is a Fostex FF225WK wideband driver that I treated mechanically with a ring of black tak at the cone/dustcap junction. It was very effective, so your doping strategy clearly is one way to go with misbehaving drivers...not disputing that as I found out indirectly by doing a similar thing myself.

The rest of your list is indeed what is in the OmniMets.
The air mass termination was Scotts advice 11 years ago. Now without that, they would not work at all.
So actually there is the both if you in those speakers That's interesting.

[cressy]

I think my mets are pretty much the only ones with crossovers per se, inductor to give a 6db slope off the main driver as the top of its response is awful, the inverted dustcap doesnt help, and a cap and resistor on the twatter.
Mine have a tiny bit of wadding in the top of the line, nothing else.
I seem to remember bsc being mentioned on diy audio years ago on some early ones but i dont know if it was implemented

The chr70 bipole ones had just a cap on the twatter and very sparing wadding in tue top of the line, the 127s had nothing

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

So actually there is the both if you in those speakers That's interesting.

Are they arguing

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Consecutive direct verbatim quotes Richard. No more, no less.

Selective editing and you know it.

[Michael L]

Consecutive direct verbatim quotes Richard. No more, no less.

Selective editing and you know it.

You've accused many of us as being idiots but we can all read Richard.