Jeff Matthews

Al, thanks for allowing me for being all over the place while trying to figure this out for an hour or so. You are a gentleman and a scholar! Would like to hear more from you to determine whether this makes any difference at all between folded horn and direct-radiating.

How vastly? And what about Dr. Who's uploads? Can you tell a difference between the original and 7 ms. time delayed? If you can, is it the echos or something else?

DrWho, Al.... I surrender. It appears the resultant is the sum, so pitch does not change. I'll leave this alone, but I find it very interesting. Still, can you demonstrate the claimed "two-taps" from only a 7ms delay? From what it appears, the amplitudes are summed, and their resultant peaks are known as "beats." So, DrWho, with your uploaded samples, it seems the difference is in these beats. The only thing is they are so close we do not hear it like "beats" in laymen's terms. Instead, we just notice something a little "different" - whatever the right term might be (out of phase?). But really.... 2 taps of Mrs. Powell's tappies? Can you reproduce what TBrennan said about Powell's 2 taps from a mere 7ms delay? I watch you guys play it out. You are ahead of me for sure.

Quoting myself for the purpose of admitting, yet, that I might be wrong again! Is it the intersections of the 2 that define the resultant 3rd? Or is it the mathematical SUM of the 2 that defines the resultant 3rd? In any event, you still have the 3rd, but depending upon how the 3rd is defined (by intersections or the sum), it could make a whole lot of difference in the conclusion. Anybody know how the resultant 3rd gets defined?

Apparently, you forgot your high school wave mechanics class, like I did. After you digest my follow-up, do you agree that you were wrong, as I was? I think I am right, now. Wondering if you still think I'm wrong. I'd like to see if someone could finally get an "answer" we all agree with. BTW: Be careful not to undermine common-sense by relating it to higher education. I got my JD from the University of Texas in 1993. It didn't help me much with wave mechanics, though. So, I never jumped out and said "look at my degree." Common sense=logic=scientific approach.

Al, buddy, I think you and I were wrong. But you made a valid point about the "noise" that the brain discards. Now that this "seems" (which I say very carefully) to be coming back to me. Music is a harmony of frequencies that we find pleasing. Among the music are all sorts of frequencies that, by themselves, can be heard. But, since we prefer to filter in only the combinations that please us, we subconsciously discard the waves that don't. These are those resultant waves that don't fit in. But... If this were the end of the story, then, every person would say every speaker was the same. I might enjoy those Blose more, like DrWho said. But, I'll go out on a limb (which I bet is pretty stout limb) and say that we naturally do not filter out all "noise." Some of us will filter out different "noise" frequencies, depending upon way too many factors that to consider them, would leave us all in agreement that the whole listening process is subjective. It is objective to a limit, but then goes subjective. That's why the example of the TV going and the wife talking at the same time applies. If you're focused on the TV, at least some PART (if not all - []) of the wife gets filtered out. Conversely, if you're focused on the wife, at least some part of the TV gets filtered out. It all depends upon what the BRAIN wants to filter out. That said, remember that this went back to the "Eleanor Powell two-taps" issue where it was said a sound engineer (maybe not a PhD. engineer - I do not know the man's credentials) supposedly heard two-taps where there was one physical tap by Mrs. Powell. This was alleged to have been heard by the alleged engineer-guy based upon a sound delay between the HF and LF of 7 ms. I still would contend, this far, that nobody.... and I mean nobody... could ever discern 2 taps where there was only 1, by only a 7 ms delay between LF and HF.

Okay, you missed my corrections to my own poor math. Actually, my math is pretty good, it's just going that far back when we studied this takes me a while to get my bearings straight. I think there's something that both you and I missed so far (so, you're probably not in Illinois, either). Look at my quote (actually at the later post I made to correct the earlier post, where I said later, the tone's the same), and then, look at your response. You agreed with me that the overlaying creates the same tone, but a new amplitude. Not..... Better go enroll at Illinois U. I went ahead and physically plotted the "delay thing" using pen and paper. If you will recall from physics, you have 2 sources plotted (being the 2 "A" notes in our example). You will also recall your teacher telling you that the two waves create a RESULTANT wave, whose fequency and amplitude is detemined by the intersections of the 2 sources. Yep! A 3rd wave. I'm not embarrassed at all to be wrong. I like working through problems, and if there's not folks out there like you to put in their 2 cents, you miss out on some things. You gave rise to a challenge, but YOU and I were both wrong on a point upon which we agreed. I still question how audible the effect really is in terms of whether or not I "like" the way a song sounds through speakers. Finally, I have no personal need to get defensive regarding my speakers. Like you said, they are great speakers. Believe me, I have WAY more going on in my life than to define my self-worth by a pair of speakers I own. I simply found the theory being discussed to challenge my memory of physics to see if I would agree with you. I am not at the point of agreeing, yet, but I will agree both you and I were both wrong for not taking into account the resultant wave that occurs from the intersection of 2 waves spaced apart.

I am not sure, but it looks like you are proving my point. Amplitude is volume. It changes. Volume is a non-factor for sound quality for this purpose. You say "[t]here is no change in pitch..." My point exactly, pitch=frequency=tone. No change in tone. An "A" is an "A" with or without the delay, or echo. So, if I do not physically discern something that makes me say "Did you hear that echo?", there is no qualitative difference. Again, an "A" is an "A" until the pitch, or frequency, is CHANGED. A uniform delay will not change pitch.

You ........ are Soooooooo wrong ...... 3 Hundredths of a second is Clearly audible 50 ms ...is a huge amount ....i will leave the Spankin' .. for Dragonfyr to do .....[] 3 Hundreths is 30ms. We're talking 3/1000 or 3ms.

the fact that i hear a very obvious echo with a 3ms delay is enough proof for me that it can make a difference. I'll bet you do not hear an echo. Just do the same thing with a single pure note. Upload 5-second tracks. They'll be smaller.

Wait a second! If you read all my long crap, you would notice a flaw in my math pertaining to the graphing of overlayed "A" notes 3 ms apart. My math was wrong, but I think this proves my point to a "T." If you overlayed the two "A" notes, but separated them by 3ms, you would get a "net" result of a new amplitude, but the FREQUENCY would be exactly the same. Thus, NO CHANGE in tone at all, just volume. Therefore, I think the so-called Eleanor Powell two-tap phenomenon posted by TBrennan is the limit the discussion could have. I think the delay could only result in an echo - not a change in tone or timbre at all. So, the only "qualitative" effect might be volume (due to the new resultant amplitude) and echo (due to the delay). I think we could all agree volume is a non-factor. That leaves us with the only qualitative distinction being whether you can perceive an echo. So, can you hear any echos on the delayed track? Nope!

I'm not nearly as inclined to research this topic and make myself a sound engineer at the end of the day.... but let me just try to throw some common-sense on this topic. You are talking 2 and 3ms. That's .002 and .003 seconds. I doubt seriously the ear could ever discern such a difference. Even if it was possible to discern it, making it "audible," it still takes a HUGE jump to say this audible difference is significant enough to translate into the ability to affect perceived "quality." I would bet there is nobody that could listen to two tracks (one we would use as a reference, and the other we would use as the "delayed" subject), and sit there and honestly tell me one sounds "worse" than the other. I think given what folks are trying to push in this theory, a more "pure" test might be to have it relate to a single note. With perfectly calibrated instruments, record an "A" for 5 seconds or so. Then, place a 2 or 3 ms gap at the begining of a second "A" and dub it right over the old "A" for the full 5 seconds or so. What you would have in the end is what we are all discussing. You have the frequencies coming in at different intervals. BUT these are the same frequency, so you've removed all the other variables and got right down to delay ONLY. If you did this, could you not measure the pitch with a pitch meter? I would bet without a pitch meter (just using the plain old ears), there is nobody that could distinguish any change in the pitch (or any so-called "noise" this delay might create). I would also bet a pitch meter (I hope I'm using the right name for the instrument - those things that help people tune their guitars, etc.), would also register a perfect "A." Just because you can "picture" the wave "noise" that results from time delay in your head on a graph does not mean you can hear it. I would even bet you could play the single "A" note by itself and insert 2 - 3 ms blank intervals. For example, the note sustains for 1 second, then is shut off for 3 ms, then back on for 1 second, etc. I bet everyone would agree once played back that there is absolutely no discerning any gap anywhere. It would sound like a constant note. Imagine a woodpecker sitting on a tree and pecking it 500 times in 1 second (that would be 2 ms intervals) or 333 times in 1 second (which would be 3 ms intervals). It would have to sound like 1 "smack" to everyone. Now, imagine the woodpecker had 2 differently-tuned pieces of wood to peck, and could peck each 1 at a time, at the same 3 ms rate of speed. There, you might hear a different note. But you will not hear both notes. This is what somebody referred to as delay affecting timbre (not timber[]). But remember, there ARE 2 different notes being played when this occurs; the deal is that they are so close together, they sound like 1 - but only a different 1. That's the same thing that would occur if a guitarist could play different notes that quickly back-and-forth. However, the music we listen to is nowhere close to this example. Nobody listens to 2 notes and calls them a song (except Ted Nugent). Really, though, when you have such a limited number of notes in the mix, it "could" affect timbre, but it would still sound so "pure" there would be no quality issue. When you get a bunch of notes moving around in harmony, there is NO WAY you could ever process this immensely minute difference in timbre. The brain is too busy hearing the song. So, my belief is this delay phenomenon is interesting in terms of picturing graphs and pondering how the "obvious picture" might register in terms of the quality of the audible sound. But I think our brains process sound based upon what the focus of attention is. Ever been watching a news story, and your wife says something, but it doesn't register clearly? Ever been talking to your wife while a news story is on, and the news story did not register clearly? These are the EXACT same sounds, only you heard them qualitatively differently. If you are being a "good" audiophile - not thinking about anything else but that song, there are still so many notes flying around and so much harmony put together that you could never discern any qualitive difference between frequencies that came in delayed by 3 ms. By the way, it is only when these delayed pitches mix that we encounter a "noise" experience. Noise is just a perception of one or more sounds that do not "fit in." What is the frequency of an "A?" Obviously it is in waves/sec. Graph the "A" and graph another "A" on top of the old "A" but adjusted to the right by 3/1000 of a second. The intersections create a new tone. You have a new amplitude and wavelength. What are they? I'll bet the new amplitude and wavelength is so utterly close to the original "A" it's not funny. Compare (1) the variation in frequency of the "new" note from the original "A" and (2) the variation in frequency of the "new note" from the "B flat" that follows up the line from our old "A." I bet the variance shows the "new" note is real snug up against the old "A" and miles apart (relatively) from the "B flat." It would be like taking a trip to the grocery store versus trying to travel outside our galaxy. Y'up. I'm sceptical of this theory. If you want to talk 50ms delay... that's different.

There's a joke behind it. We had a hilarious forum the other night. It got pretty "passionate," so lawsuits were threatened, and the thread got killed and pulled by management. See "Ratings Thread..... Dead." P. S. Work w/Tofu on helping him out. I think he's serious (really). We have a debate about what's noticeable by the human ear.

Dear Klipsch Management: In my 35 years as a professional audiophile, I have never seemed to find a speaker that I consistently enjoy. That some of your members on this forum would suggest I enjoy a speaker when I don't is demonstrably the highest degree of intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which no semblance of toleration can be permitted. Rather than turning this matter over to an attorney for legal action, I demand you remove all proof of my self-contradictions from this forum. Officially and for the record, Heresies WERE only the finest speaker in the world of their kind a year ago. Today, I maintain they are "an instrument of torture, Tomas de Torquemeda would have used these." With Gravest Concerns, Tomas Brennan de Torquemeda[:$] DISCLAIMER: This is not a statement made by Tom Brennan. It is fictional and for entertainment purposes only.

Well said, Dean.

Al, Give a man a fish/Teach a man to fish.... Google "Tom Brennan" together with "Eleanor Powell" at the same time. Good luck, luck, luck, luck, luck....

Post a thread to let us know how you think they compare w/your Cornwalls.

Hey, Tofu. I got to thinking, and it dawned on me. You have the "delayed" LaScalas. You probably would want to accelerate and see what happens.[]

Are they pretty or need some cosmetics?

Hey, TBrennan! Did you see I got my KHorns? I'm proud of 'em. There is definitely a noticeable difference in the base. Not so noticeable in the MF and HF, though - except on sudden stops w/quiet - then, crash! The bass sounds like it's coming from everywhere between the two corners. Really neat! Sorry the thing got crazy enough on the Rating thread to make you mad. My advice? Take whatever I say in jest. It was a strong debate, but I didn't get personal. In a good debate, my style is very sarcastic, but never hateful. Wonder if Tofu's really going to follow through on this delay issue and confirm or refute Dr.Who's uploads?

That's you talking to yourself! Mr. Brennan's back on. He gave a very diplomatic summary of the dispute and extended an olive branch to keep discussions limited to "avoiding political discussions and sticking to hi-fi." Think it'll last? I hope not, or I'll have to find another forum.

Back into the foray? Hey, it's all good fun. Try not to get bogged down too hard. Congrats up there! Your Sox beat our Astros. The funny thing is your crowd is so mellow compared to ours. Go, Astros!

That's alot of work! You're not going to hear anything.

Well, yesterday was apparently a "get even" day. This is an odd day. I went and got those KHorns, brought 'em home and hooked 'em up. You know, while I was playing one of my favorite Santana CD's, I could swear I heard Carlos tapping twice. Is there something wrong with my new KHorns? Craig??? Tofu??? EdwinR??? I know, let's ask Tom. He'll say anything. BTW, Craig, where's your new avatar?

Tofu was there as it unfolded in all of its glorious, naked beauty!