Jeff Matthews

"Fillmore Shuffle" by Sammy Hagar. Caught it before you edited! Next: "Now, my baby's gone, and I don't know what to do. She took-a my love and walked right out the door." Name that Tune!

Googling is fair! "The Dangling Conversation" by Simon and Garfunkel. Next lyrics: "On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving anyplace. If the Summer Changed to Winter..." Name that tune!

You must name the tune. Partial answers are okay for hints, but the winner is the person who names the tune. Only the winner gets to post the next lyrics for the next tune. Stay w/Classic Rock, national artists and 10-word hints. Tom's in in play: "Its a still-life watercolor." Name that tune!

Okay forum friends. Here's the Rules of this game. The person posts the hint. The person who successfully answers gets to post the next hint. The rules will get more complex if people provide incorrect answers. If someone knows of an incorrect answer, post why they think so, and I'll moderate. I'm still a player, though. For now on, all hints must contain at least 10 words. Try to stick to Classic Rock and try to stay away from unheard-of local bands that never had national recognition. Tom's is in action: "It's a still-life watercolor." Name that tune!

Man! I'd have never figured anyone to get that one so quickly. I thought I was going to have to drop hints at 24-hr. intervals. You ARE a classic rocker!

Dr Who, me, too! You appeared to have tried the "no-peek" test. Did you try w/A,B and C sample where 2 are original and 1 is modified? Mixing them up in different orders to see if you're still capable of determing the difference?

Okay, new tune. "Rael, Imperial Aerosol Kid, exits into daylight, spraygun hid." Name that tune!

Bingo! It's a fun game. I'll try another more difficult one in another post.

Here's some lyrics. Name that tune! "You wouldn't even know a diamond if you held it in your hand. The things you think are precious, I can't understand."

Oh, Tofu....... I have noticed you've been REAL quiet about putting in your 2 cents. Looks like your quietly working on the test model. Tell us whether we should sell a kidney or not.... not.... not...

To address the combined responses of a few of you in your prior posts, you are right in that it is not important that a listener can tell which is which. It is more important as to whether they can tell a difference. I thought about that while I was out the door on my way to lunch. I knew one of you would raise the issue, so here I respond. Try the same test, but this time give them 3 samples, A=B and C is delayed. Ask them whether A=B, A=C or A=B=C. I still bet you get a answers about what you'd expect if the room was full of monkies. BTW I admit my response in the now infamous Ratings thread indicated I thought I heard a difference. It could be, and probably was, a monkey-like response. As to whether some dude with a name wrote on this before or not (in terms of your trying to legitimize there is an audible difference), that's fine if you are inclined to believe it. But do not necessarily contend that it makes you KNOW there is a difference. All you can claim to KNOW is some guy wrote that there was. If you want to prove it to me show me the test results from the simple test format I suggested. Also, in my "monkey-like" response in the Ratrings thread, you'll recall I thought the delayed version sounded better to me. So, using the same suggested test, ask each person which one(s) sounded better. You'll get all kinds of non-sense! Or........ sense, as I would hypothesize - the sense being there's no difference. That would leave all this talk about 7ms delays between mid and woofer to be just a bunch of rubbish. I am SURE you'd have responses from the test equivalent to the randomness you'd get out of monkies - nowhere close to 70% in terms of a CORRECT response (which would be A=B and C is different, and A and B are better). I'll bet you'd also get monkey-like responses from a room full of so-called audiophiles. Dr. Who, you've got the equipment. Try it. And then, post the HONEST results. It'd be very interesting to know. In the end, even if there was a strong correlation showing people can discern, we will have the back-up question on which to place our focus. Can somebody tell what "better" is. If they fail this test, then, who cares whether there is a difference? I will maintain that what sounds "better" is not the same as which sample exudes a more accurate reproduction. Hell, why do we care about accurate? We want "more pleasing." Think about it. That's why Aerosmith "reproduced" the Beatles' "Come Together." Some people like the "inaccuracies" of the Aerosmith version. At least one thing's for sure, this started out with somebody pushing an idea that an echo would be noticeable from a 7ms delay. Not a difference, but a real echo (two taps instead of one). It seems everybody has come to grips that this was just plain false. Do you want to go further to prove there's a difference? Try my simple test lay-out. You've got the equipment, Dr. Who. Post honest results, and let's see what happens.

Ah, young grasshopper.... I mean Dragonfly! Reading your comment carefully, you assume "we do hear gross changes." That's the whole argument, and instead of proving it, you assume it and say everyone else is too easily dismissive. YOU are too easily dismissive. Here's the test. Get 2 tracks - 1 original and 1 time-delayed. Play these tracks through the exact same speakers with 10 people in the room - all motionless and with their eyes closed. Tell them nothing about which track is which. Play the tracks back to back a few times if they need it. Then, ask them, separately, and not in the presence of each other or within the hearing of each other, which track was original and which was delayed. I bet you get a screwball set of answers all over the place because on average, nobody can tell - and that's what's important. These comparative tracks will leave people guessing like monkies (audiophiles[]) and some will guess correctly out of shear chance only. That's my hypothesis. Care to test your assumption that they are audible differences?

Craig, you just like going around and upsetting everyone! I thought you were my friend, man![].

7 thousandths. But point well taken. That's the point I am making - that 7 thousandths doesn't matter. But I like to hear the theory and to hear somebody try to convince me it does... does.. does... does. Oh come on Jeff you just like a lengthy some what warm debate. Who you kidding it could be about toilet paper[] Craig Okay, you caught me, Craig... But I didn't see the thread on toilet paper........................................... my poor Astros![]

It's been real fun, but maybe this will end this debate. Suppose you're listening to stereo from an equidistant point from both. Simply stepping aside 2 steps would accomplish this same argued phase-shift - and thus a "whole new timbre" as it would be argued. If the difference is the same as moving away from the center a couple of steps, big deal!

Getting back to my prior thread, Al, I tried to make sense of your tables, but I can't decipher them entirely. But, as to my thread re: the gaps and bleedovers, would this be just matters that pertain only to amplitude (volume) for the given tone represented? If so, I can't imagine how you could pick up amplitude variations that close together. As to harmonies, the gaps and bleedovers would be delays between different instruments and between notes on the same instrument - and assuming there's no sharing of the tone between the mid and woofer. That's a matter that I also think would not be capable of perception.

You mean you didn't hear Carlos Santana doing his double-tap dance when I listened to my new Horns earlier? He doesn't just play guitar. You can hear it only if you're a "true[]" audiophile.

All right, Mr. Baiter (like my double entendre?[:$]), in the metric world, milli=1000ths and micro=1,000,000ths.

Okay, read my prior thread about 400hz is 400hz is 400hz and no musician is capable of keeping up to a 7ms degree of accuracy. If this is the difference you refer to as a difference in "perceived timbre," I still think it's imperceptible.

7 thousandths. But point well taken. That's the point I am making - that 7 thousandths doesn't matter. But I like to hear the theory and to hear somebody try to convince me it does... does.. does... does.

I don't hear it. I'm a drummer, and I can't hear it. I'm not trying to go into credentials by saying I am a drummer, but I generally tend to focus on drums in a tune. Those echos are in both versions. They are part of the song.

Here I go, again being an unseasoned "audiophile" trying to intelligently digest this theory. But.......... Dr Who, you gave the A, A+B, B approach. I get it. However, if we are saying that a time-delay (phase shift?) has no effect on the frequency or tone, then where does your approach come into play? If, for example, a 400hz note is projected through the speaker. A is the mid-range blowing 400hz, A+B are the mid-range and woofer blowing 400hz, and B is the woofer blowing 400hz. Now, let's separate the phase shift for a moment, and focus only on the note. Doesn't a 400hz note sound the SAME, whether it is projected through a mid-range or woofer? I would think so. 400hz is 400hz is 400hz. So, bearing in mind that we are only dealing with a single, fixed note for this purpose, it seems A is the mid blowing 400hz. A+B means the woofer just joined in at the same tone, and B is the woofer dragging behind at the same tone at the end. So, it should sound like one continuous note, and the only difference would be that its total length is 7ms longer. That said, I can see where the phase-shift would cause a set of repeated gaps and bleedovers through a song, but only in theory and not to our audible reality. Let's say the guitar and bass are supposed to come in together. We hear the guitar come in through the mid. Next, we hear the bass. Let's assume now that the guitar and bass are supposed to stop at the same time. The bass would then bleed over. Of course, this assumes NO common playing of the same frequency within the single instrument through BOTH the mid and the woofer (i.e., the bass only comes in through the woofer). If there is commonality, it seems the gaps and bleeds are reduced. Am I right so far? If so, I can't imagine you'd hear any difference because in the real world, I don't know of a guitarist who can keep up with a bassist to within 7ms, and vise versa. That goes for all instruments. That also goes for changes in tunes within the same instrument that could THEORETICALLY transverse from mid to woofer IN A MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE manner. Once the tone played by a single instrument crosses into the overlap and is played by both the mid and woofer, there would be no phase shift. So, it would appear the "real" issue is the delayed starts and stops WITHIN WHAT SHOULD BE ONLY A SINGLE HARMONY. Like I said, I know of no musician who can keep up with other musicians to within 7ms. Right or wrong?

DrWho, very well-reasoned and explained. I get it now that you use the A,A+B,B approach. I tried to notice something from the drums in your uploads. But with that guitar, keyboard and bass, etc., going all at the same time, I can't really grasp it. Got something with say, just the drums?

Dr. Who, you too seem to have savy, coupled with the right equipment to do a simple test for upload. Puting aside the issue of calculating the speed of sound, let's focus on audibility of the "two-tap" phenomenon. Can you put together single tone LF (but at the upper -not lower - end of the KHorn woofer's handling ability) tracks with increasing delays until you think you've found an audible echo? If so, upload it and tell us what the delay factor was. I think this would accurately tell us whether the relative pathways for woofers vs. mid-ranges in this model have any audible significance.

Actually, Al, I think you answered my question, and I overlooked it. You're saying it's intermod distortion. So, I guess I get a little more intermod from KHorns than Corns because of the folded woofer.