New hardware

[Deang]

I design and install Cisco based networks for a living. This includes code upgrades, software and hardware configurations -- and then I have to rack it and make it work. Switching and routing is a strange world, and now that we're getting more into IPv6, it's getting a lot stranger. We spend a lot of time getting into knock-down-drag-outs, arguing about the best way to go about doing something.

I don't know what the rest of you do for a living, but does life teach you that there is only one way to do something? Sure, sometimes, but not usually. In my line of work, the more complex the problem is, the more solutions we have, and all are perfectly acceptable and workable solutions. Will someone someday say, "that's a flawed design"? Doubtful.

There is more than one way to do something well. The swamping resistor is just one way of getting it done.

What about this guy, is he lost, or should we recognize his credentials and consider that he might actually know what he's talking about?

https://www.trueaudio.com/st_xov_1.htm

Edited October 15, 2015 by Deang

[Arkytype]

Dean, you wrote, The swamping resistor is an intergral [sic] part of Al's designs. However, the ability to adjust the attenuation is more of a convenience feature. I personally don't think it's a requirement unless you like trying a lot of different horns and drivers.

 

Moving the autoformer tap may be a convenience, but that’s no excuse for not using a 50 cent resistor to provide your amplifier with a more linear impedance load.

 

You wrote: If you have something you know you want to stick with, know how much to attenuate the driver, and know what the impedance is at the crossover point -- you can use impedance scaling to find the primary capacitor value. I would imagine this is what John did, and it works perfectly fine. 

 

John’s one-solution-fits-all network and top section baffle require the customer to choose between two HF options on the front end. If the customer later chooses an alternate HF driver requiring a different crossover frequency, he or she will have to scrap the entire network. With the limited attenuation range of John’s autoformer, one is forced to stick with an alternative midrange driver with nearly identical sensitivity such as the B&C DCM50. Changing to a 16 ohm driver is out of the question.

 

One of the great design benefits of Al’s family of crossover networks is that you aren’t stuck with a single solution. So, pretty much regardless of which Klipsch loudspeaker you own, you can upgrade not only the HF section by choosing from several aftermarket horns and drivers, but are able to choose the LF or HF crossover network that best matches your choice now and in the future.

 

You wrote: There is more than one way to do something well. The swamping resistor is just one way of getting it done.

 

With apologies to our porcine pets, adding a swamping resistor to John’s network would be like putting lipstick on a pig! Is using low-Q, lossy inductors instead of high-Q, low-loss inductors wound with Litz wire an example of “one way to do something well”?

 

The Butterworth design topology John copied from Klipsch is old school at best. To paraphrase the late great Yogi Berra, the reason everyone uses Butterworth filters is because everyone uses Butterworth filters. This type of filter is all audio people understand and it’s what you get with the on-line crossover calculators. 

 

Looking at the schematic of John’s network (see my earlier post), one can see that he uses two Butterworth 3^rd order filters with their inputs separated by the autoformer and a high-pass filter consisting of a single capacitor connected to the woofer. This design is flawed in-part because the reactance cancellation needed between the filter sections (to achieve a more nearly perfect and constant amplifier load) is absent. This clearly gives us a better reason to put the transformer at the termination end than for just the convenience of correct shelving! It is a win-win situation compared to a bad and outmoded design.

 

You wrote: What about this guy (John Murphy), is he lost, or should we recognize his credentials and consider that he might actually know what he's talking about?

 

The “guy” you are referring to is the well-respected John Murphy. Who hasn’t downloaded a free copy of his TrueRTA audio spectrum analyzer software? His DATS and WinSpeakerz programs are great, affordable tools.

 

His paper represents a common-sense approach to crossover network design. However, with the exception of using a Linkwitz-Riley type filter in one of his examples, his discussion is centered solely on using the Butterworth type of filter..

 

I hope you aren’t trying to compare his design acumen to that of John Warren; it would be an insult to Mr. Murphy.

 

You wrote: I don't like the proxy posting while Al plays the cheerleader. Seriously?

 

So, you weren’t acting as John Warren’s proxy with your last two posts?

 

You were certainly happy and willing enough to be Al Klappenberger’s proxy in these posts:

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/145971-new-tweeter/?hl=de120

 

Lee 

[John Warren]

The action Items I’ve taken from this thread are listed below:

1. Provide pink noise power curves of midrange and Klipschorn bass unit demonstrating that high pass network used in design is more than adequate to keep from damaging the compression driver.

2. Offer option to change attenuation settings by revising net design to incorporate shunt resistor (when customer wants > +/1dB changes).

3. Provide midrange attenuation curves showing optional swamping resistor network.

4. Offer “parts + shipping cost only” upgrade of the net for K77 to Faital tweeter upgrade.

5. Offer network option to eliminate 2-3k drop in response (prototype complete and measured but need more time to consider how much value is really added here).

6. Offer Litz wire option for folks that what them (inaudible).

7. Offer network option for BMS on Selenium Horn with Faital tweeter (customer request).

8. Show network response with other tweeters, provide mounting brackets, inserts for then.

9. Create webpage detailing autotransformer design, performance, drawbacks, advantages including destructive analysis of new unit.

10. Create a webpage detailing the circuit simulators used to design nets.

11. Run web site through spell-checker. Turn auto-spell check feature ON in HTML editor.

Also, I shouldn't forget to mention that the inserts really do sound quite good!

Edited October 16, 2015 by John Warren

[John Warren]

djk-

AR-LST

Edited October 16, 2015 by John Warren

[mikebse2a3]

The action Items I’ve taken from this thread are listed below:

1. Provide pink noise power curves of midrange and Klipschorn bass unit demonstrating that high pass network used in design is more than adequate to keep from damaging the compression driver.

2. Offer option to change attenuation settings by revising net design to incorporate shunt resistor (when customer wants > +/1dB changes).

3. Provide midrange attenuation curves showing optional swamping resistor network.

4. Offer “parts + shipping cost only” upgrade of the net for K77 to Faital tweeter upgrade.

5. Offer network option to eliminate 2-3k drop in response (prototype complete and measured but need more time to consider how much value is really added here).

6. Offer Litz wire option for folks that what them (inaudible).

7. Offer network option for BMS on Selenium Horn with Faital tweeter (customer request).

8. Show network response with other tweeters, provide mounting brackets, inserts for then.

9. Create webpage detailing autotransformer design, performance, drawbacks, advantages including destructive analysis of new unit.

10. Create a webpage detailing the circuit simulators used to design nets.

11. Run web site through spell-checker. Turn auto-spell check feature ON in HTML editor.

Also, I shouldn't forget to mention that the inserts really do sound quite good!

 

John this thread has proved one thing for me and that is you have shown real class in your responses and an open mind   

 

miketn

[jimjimbo]

John this thread has proved one thing for me and that is you have shown real class in your responses and an open mind

 

I would agree with that. 

[jwc]

This is a great thread......

[Travis In Austin]

The action Items I’ve taken from this thread are listed below:

1. Provide pink noise power curves of midrange and Klipschorn bass unit demonstrating that high pass network used in design is more than adequate to keep from damaging the compression driver.

2. Offer option to change attenuation settings by revising net design to incorporate shunt resistor (when customer wants > +/1dB changes).

3. Provide midrange attenuation curves showing optional swamping resistor network.

4. Offer “parts + shipping cost only” upgrade of the net for K77 to Faital tweeter upgrade.

5. Offer network option to eliminate 2-3k drop in response (prototype complete and measured but need more time to consider how much value is really added here).

6. Offer Litz wire option for folks that what them (inaudible).

7. Offer network option for BMS on Selenium Horn with Faital tweeter (customer request).

8. Show network response with other tweeters, provide mounting brackets, inserts for then.

9. Create webpage detailing autotransformer design, performance, drawbacks, advantages including destructive analysis of new unit.

10. Create a webpage detailing the circuit simulators used to design nets.

11. Run web site through spell-checker. Turn auto-spell check feature ON in HTML editor.

Also, I shouldn't forget to mention that the inserts really do sound quite good!

John this thread has proved one thing for me and that is you have shown real class in your responses and an open mind

miketn

+1

[Deang]

Unless your amplifier is a complete pos, it really doesn't care what load you give it, like I said, they're designed to work efficiently with just about any load.

I presented John Murphy's article because his recommended solution is similar to PWK's early designs, which you called "flawed" and "outmoded". Yes, I know who John Murphy is, I was being facetious.

At the time of those postings, Al was banned, and I was building the Universal, so of course I would post in that manner. But now, Al can speak for himself - yet we have this nonsense. Instead of having you copying and pasting his emails, why can't he just come in here and say what he has to say?

Where did I suggest putting a swamping resistor on John's network? I was comparing two different ways of network design, and pointing out that both methods give acceptable results. In my own listening tests however, I prefer the sound without the swamping resistor.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Deang

[Arkytype]

Instead of having you copying and pasting his emails, why can't he just come in here and say what he has to say?

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

Lee 

[Arkytype]

I was comparing two different ways of network design, and pointing out that both methods give acceptable results. In my own listening tests however, I prefer the sound without the swamping resistor.

 

Dean et al,

 

Here are some of Al's design philosophies which you should already know by heart. They are taken directly from the "Questions, Answers and Downloads" section of his web site; so, technically, this is not a proxy post.   

 

"Providing a stereo amplifier with a constant 8 Ohms load is not actually required. Very few crossover networks designed by others are constant impedance. The stock networks for Klipsch Heritage speakers is all over the place. Some cause 8 Ohms speakers to look more like 70 Ohms in the midrange! The actual merit of a constant impedance is that it is the mark of a properly designed filter. This is a lesson learned through years of experience designing filters a microwave frequencies. With stringent requirements on "return loss" at microwave frequencies you quickly learn to do it correctly.

 

There is simply no good reason why a network should NOT have a constant impedance! The fact that good amplifiers with high damping factors can handle bad loads is no more a reasonable argument for poor designs then a highway engineer would claim that a road should have lots of curves and bumps simply because cars have steering wheels and shock absorbers!

 

Another way to put it is that a network that provides a constant impedance will sound better, not just because it loads the amplifier with a constant impedance, but because it is a correctly designed network.

 

On the other hand, if you have an amplifier with poor damping factor, like a 5 watt SET, it will operate much better if it sees a constant impedance load. The frequency response can actually follow the load impedance curve!"

 

Who would you want to buy an aftermarket network from; someone who has built and sold 1500+ "correctly designed" networks or one with a questionable design?  

 

You were given a golden opportunity by Al to build his Universal networks. How did that go? Is your lack of sales success with that network the source of your animosity toward Al or are you just a sorehead? 

 

Lee

[BEC]

Since this is the Klipsch forum guess it is time to post PWK's ideas on this subject.

[mikebse2a3]

On the other hand, if you have an amplifier with poor damping factor, like a 5 watt SET, it will operate much better if it sees a constant impedance load. The frequency response can actually follow the load impedance curve!"

 

After a year of comparing the ALK network in Klipschorn with stock drivers versus the Klipschorn with the AK-3 my overwhelming preference was for the AK-3 when using a 2A3 SE amplifier. In my opinion the AK-3 provided the best tonal balance for the system. I will also note that the maximum available dynamic range (especially observable on high quality vocal recordings) was best with the AK-3 because the swamping resistor loading of the ALK reduced the power available from the amplifier.

 

Put simply in my personnel experience any benefit of the swamping resistor was outweighed by the drawback when driven by a small wattage SET.

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

Glad you posted that BEC

 

miketn

[Deang]

"You were given a golden opportunity by Al to build his Universal networks. How did that go? Is your lack of sales success with that network the source of your animosity toward Al or are you just a sorehead?"

When Al found out that Greg Roberts (Volti) was building and selling a cloned version of the Universal, he had a complete meltdown. I suggested that since Greg was building with crap parts, I could build an intermediate level Universal at about the same price to compete with it. My reasoning was that people would opt for a correctly built Universal using good parts as opposed to the poor build that Greg was offering (at the same price).

When I informed Al that I had a prototype, he informed me that he did too. After I saw what parts he had chosen, I told Al that I wouldn't build it. Al told me that I wouldn't be building it -- he was. Imagine my surprise since I had been given the license to build it. The irony here is that the only reason he gave me the Universal to begin with was because he considered the design "obsolete", and that he was tired of building it. I said to Al, "so let me get this straight, because Greg is building a network that no one really cares about, you want to start building a network that you're tired of building, and that you believe to be obsolete?" Cost was kept to a minimum by using the cheapest capacitors and low pass coil on the market.

I saw no point in building the Universal anymore, since this would have meant competing with Al, against a network being sold for peanuts, and having to deal with all of the email that would have generated. Al's reasoning was that an "entry level" network that had run its course didn't require or deserve the best parts. He wanted to make the design as undesirable as possible so he could push people to his higher end designs. The higher end designs get the ClarityCap ESA series of capacitors that I recommended, even though Al doesn't believe they sound any better than the crap he uses on the CornScala-Wall. He responds by saying that his customers demand these type parts, and that it's simple "snob appeal". I call it hypocrisy.

I was also growing tired of the difference in opinion between Al and myself regarding network design. I never made a secret of the fact that I preferred the sound of the early Klipsch designs to the Universal, and I've always been very up front with Al about this. A Type AA built with paper in oils or Jupiters will kick the shit out of the Universal - and that's with the best parts I can build it with.

I still offer the SuperX (which also sounds better than the Universal), but only to those who need the ability to attenuate. Others are steered towards the Type A or AA whenever possible.

I don't care for the ESN designs. The sound is dry, two-dimensional, and the transients are practically non-existent. In small rooms, you can hear the sound moving between the drivers, which has to be one of the most unnatural phenomena I've ever experienced from a loudspeaker. Is this what we should expect from superior network design? The "obsolete" Universal actually does a much better job of integrating the drivers.

John's a pretty smart guy, I can't imagine him botching it up any worse than Al.

Universal sales were doing just fine at the time I decided to stop building them, which is why I didn't understand Al's reaction to Greg's reproduction. If it wasn't for Greg's cloning of the Universal, there wouldn't even be a "CornScala-Wall" Universal. Two things here: 1) Bob is too gracious to say it publicly, so I'll say it for him -- he was not real happy that a name that has been widely known to be associated with his loudspeaker design, was taken and used by another vendor for the promotion of their own product. 2) it is astounding that after years of screaming about the relationship of the impedance of the low pass and how it interacts with the high pass - we now have a network that works in anything with no changes whatsoever. In the SuperX, I still size the high pass accordingly based on the loudspeaker it's going into, just the way I was taught by you know who.

I sure hope no one buys into the bullshit about what impedance amplifiers "like to see". It's a complete red herring. The only things that matters are the acoustic response and the impact on sensitivity. The reality is this: if you set up one of Al's networks in one speaker, with a Klipsch network in the other speaker, the ALK design lags behind in the worst kind of way - you can barely hear the midrange. You have to knock 3dB off of the Klipsch network to get them close, and even still the ALK is still slightly lower in output. So, where is this energy going? You decide. Remember, there is no free lunch.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Deang

[John Warren]

This design is flawed in-part because the reactance cancellation needed between the filter sections (to achieve a more nearly perfect and constant amplifier load) is absent. This clearly gives us a better reason to put the transformer at the termination end than for just the convenience of correct shelving! It is a win-win situation compared to a bad and outmoded design.

 

Lee 

 

The amplifier is a low cost Onkyo basic amp.  The amp is rated at +/1dB between 10-100kHz into a 6 Ohm load, DF~100.

 

The photo shows the amplifier providing 1V RMS of white noise into the network input and the mid and HF outs loaded with non-inductive power resistors. 

 

The plots are FFTs of the amplifier output expressed in arbitrary decibels.  The first plot is the amplifier (@1V RMS) working into the network with non-inductive loads (green) on the mid and HF outputs.  The power resistors are then swapped for the drivers and the orange plot is the amplifier working into the reactive loads presented to the net from the drivers, horn reflections, etc.  Bandwidth and linearity are good.

 

The second plot is the amplifier working into the net with non-inductive loads at 0.1V (blue), 1.0V (green) and 5.0V (red) from 100-40kHz.    

 

The amount of power delivered to the audio frequency spectrum above, say 5kHz, is a very small fraction of the total.

Edited October 18, 2015 by John Warren

[Al Klappenberger]

You asked for this. No proxy..

I am getting mad as hell at what I am hearing on this thread.  First off, yes, I was banned from this forum earlier for telling it like it is about a certain vendor who stole my Universal design and is now building knock-off versions saying "change one part and the design is no longer yours". This was the FIRST competitor I foolishly trained. It may be of interest to know that Dean was right there with me even to the point of urging me to PATENT the swamping resistor idea and actually start legal action against him. I knew at that time I had seen the idea used by others. This was long after I had incorporated it into all my networks. I had simply REinvented it. It was Bob Crites (I think) who identified it as a JBL idea. I actually came to the idea independently after talking to my late friend and mentor Max Potter about if shunt resistors do or do not reduce efficiency. They do NOT! It was Max who was the spark for the idea, NOT DJK!

AS to the ban: I was NEVER reinstated nor did I ever ask to be. I was "grandfathered" back in when the forum software was upgraded but I swore I would never post again even though I could. I do NOT CARE if I am banned again. I DO care that this thread not be locked. I figured if I limit myself only to posting emoticons and post only through a proxy who will monitor my lack of tact, the chances of this happening again would be eliminated. Amy: if you find my comments out of line, or a person attack, BAND ME AGAIN, but do not lock this thread!  Exposing the truth about the poor filter designs that are accepted as gospel throughout the loudspeaker industry is my mission. The crap that passes for crossover networks, include the THING Acoustic Research cooked up for the long dead "LST" speaker would be laughed at by any serious filter designer. It breaks every rule in the book! I have been designing multiplexers (which a crossover is) from audio to 2000 MEGA Hz for nearly 40 years. I know L-C filters! They are my speciality. Letting a loudspeaker designer design a crossover is like allowing the same engineer who designed the engine in your car do the seats and style the body! You won't like the results!

NOW: for the SECOND competitor I foolishly trained, Dean Wescott! I spent countless hours on the telephone with him trying to explain the simplest concepts as well as basic filter design and transformer theory. I nearly GAVE HIM a copy of my filter design package (PCFILT) to use for analysis and research.  What a mistake that would have been! I also spent time with him unravelling the techno-double-talk often used by a prominent engineer to snow others when he gets pinned down on something, or got something wrong.

Then there is my "Universal" network. I gave Dean an opportunity to build my first network design, the Universal, in its high-priced form because I no longer wanted to build it. I did not have to do that and should not have! He bubbled over telling me what an honer it would be to build them!  At that time I explained why I no longer wanted to build it. My conscience was bothering me. With the introduction of the "AP" and Extreme-slope" series networks, it had become my "entry level" design. It lacked a tweeter shelving adjustment and no longer warranted the high cost parts. The Universal was initially modelled after the Klipsch "AA" network. It didn't need a tweeter attenuator because its "constant K" tweeter filter was so lossy! How could I justify adding a tweeter attenuator after all this time? Then there was the high cost of fancy parts like Hovland Musicaps. Having evolved into an entry level design it needed to be scaled back, not expand to even higher cost parts as Dean finally did. Not only did I give him the license to build them, I completely revamped the layout and built the first set FOR HIM taking pictures of the procedure, step by step, to show him how it was to be done! I would not accept splicing parts tougher and hanging them in mid-air like he always does. We busted our collective buts to trying to balance his prices with mine. We tried to make this work! The bottom line here is that nobody was at fault. It was a joint venture that SIMPLY FAILED!  At that time I was offering the scaled down Universal as the CornScallWall with a 600 Hz crossover. It was not interned for the Klipschorn. That was to be Dean's product. Only when Dean decided to give up and blame me for the failure did I start making the 400 Hz version and changed the name to the "CSW Universal economy". I have since built 77 sets to only a few of the high-priced version built by Dean. Then there is his "super X", alias the "ALK Junior", alias the "Super AA", which I designed and GAVE HIM. It has the autotransformer and swamping resistor at the termination end just like my Universal network. It is, IN FACT, my Universal with one less inductor and computer optimized to compensate and maintain nearly constant impedance. Dean, the next time you build one of these at your exorbitant price, remember who designed it and gave it to you for free and why.

One of the things I try to do is not introduce fads an sucker people into swallowing foolish things like battery biased capacitors. If Dean was so keen on offering a biased capacitor network, it could be done WITHOUT A BATTERY! I challenge him to figure out how to do that! Now, there is that HUGE wax dipped autotransformer that he is dazzling his customer with. All it does is run his cost and the customers price up. The original 3619 I used for years is already oversized. It will handle 50W of power all day and has a DCR of about 0.35 Ohms. I have one here that has had half the outer covering chewed off my a rat. It still works fine!  BTW: I am nearly 69 years old and my hands are beginning to shake. I can hardly use a glue gun. Dean was being groomed to totally take over my entire product line when I retired. I will never train another person to become a competitor. Now I will train only an assembler when I retire. My designs will be burred with me when I go!

Another VERY important point.. The entire audio industry is built on what I call "audio placebos". Our only source of reality is the "computer model" created inside our brain to understand reality. The fact is, a person will hear what he expects to hear, NOT reality. This means good science requires instrument measurement and evaluation of every stage of any complex system scientifically, including a loudspeaker. To measure only the acoustic output and not examine the crossover as a separate entity and as a single cog in the works is not "what engineers do"! Anyone who depends solely on his ears to eventuate a speaker is kidding himself. This also goes for people who claim they can hear the difference between brands of capacitors. It's TOTAL B.S.! Even if you could, the difference is trivial compared to the long list of cumulative boners found in poorly designed filters. If this were not true the point would not be so controversial. Anyone who thinks the AK-3 sounds better than any of my networks either has it set up wrong or does not know what he is listening to! The AK-3 also has an extreme-slope tweeter filter. It has been erroneously called an "Elliptic filter". It, like all the poor designs I see, was simply grafted in! My Universal is not recommend to replace the AK, AK-2 or AK-3, only the AA. The correct replacement for the AK-3 is my AP12-AK3 and ES5800. It will walk all over the Universal or the AK-3 and does not even require the installer to open the Klipschorn woofer hatch!

In conclusion, anyone here who decides to call me arrogant may do so. I believe there is a place for arrogance, IF YOU'RE RIGHT. Was PWK arrogant? YES, and he had good reason to be! If this gets me banned again, nobody will question why I need a proxy!

If, after all this crap, you might like to see the acoustic output of a speaker using a correctly designed network with transformers and a swamping resistors at the termination end of the filters, look here:

 

http://www.alkeng.com/shelving.jpg

It's the ES500 + ES5800.

Al K.

 

Edited October 18, 2015 by Al Klappenberger

[Deang]

Same old same old, but at least you were man enough to say it yourself.

You had no business sending Lee into John's thread and then callously following along. However, some of us expected something from your end, because we figured the thought of John coming up with something for that set up was going to drive you nuts.

I wanted you to patent the whole network concept, not just the swamping resistor, which I fully now realize doesn't work the way you think.

I asked the guys at Universal Transformer how they would build them. I like what they delivered and I think the difference in cost is worth it. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.

The rest is just venting, different side of the story (though I do remember some of that), and opinions - nothing I feel like arguing about or discussing.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Deang

[Arkytype]

Dean,

 

You wrote, You had no business sending Lee into John's thread and then callously following along. However, some of us expected something from your end, because we figured the thought of John coming up with something for that set up was going to drive you nuts.

 

As a rule I don't engage in a battle of wits with a half-armed opponent, but I might make an exception in your case. Al didn't send me into JW's thread; I e-mailed Al on 10/6 to let him know that I saw the post and pointed out some of the claims that were made. While Al may have strong opinions on a subject, he is his own man and doesn't "callously follow along" anything or anyone.

 

You then wrote: I wanted you to patent the whole network concept, not just the swamping resistor, which I fully now realize doesn't work the way you think.

 

Oh? Why don't you explain to Al and everyone reading exactly how his network really operates. Be sure to include a pole-zero diagram of the lowpass section so we'll know you aren't as full of cr@p as a Christmas turkey.

 

Lee

[Deang]

"As a rule I don't engage in a battle of wits with a half-armed opponent, but I might make an exception in your case."

That's original.

I don't think anyone actually knows how Al's networks work. When I was selling the Universal, I was sometimes required to explain the concept that the network worked on. Since I have it in email as well as on the web, what would be the point of drawing pictures for you. Besides, I never claimed to be a filter designer or an engineer - just someone who knows how follow a schematic, and make a nice build out of it.

@Al, you showed me how to do a charge coupled network without a battery via email. As for some of the other things, I also explained to you that I couldn't take over the business because I worked a full time job and could barely find the time to catch up with my own past orders. I also told you that to do it right, I would need some training, the kind that would require a trip up north. We also had philosophical differences, and I was always very honest about what I thought about the sound of your networks - but I was willing to try because I knew other people liked them. I told you that if I ended up building them, I would build them right. However, you're an extremely volatile, "my way or the highway" kind of person, and you just can't seem to accept or respect other methodologies and/approaches, which I consider to be unprofessional. There are a lot of incredible sounding systems in the world, and none of them use your microwave filter methodology - and somehow manage to sound very good. There is a huge disconnect here that you've never attempted to resolve. You're solution has simply been, "I am right and everyone else is wrong. The audio world is stuck in their big thumb engineering -- and only I can save them!" Finally, how did you "train me to be a competitor?" I'm doing the same thing now I was doing in 2004, just building simple filters with the parts that work best in those designs.

Anything else said should be said off forum, which I'm more than willing to do.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Deang