Presence speakers - What do you think?

I have a Yamaha RX-V1800 and one of its features is that it allows you to run 2 additional speakers mounted above and outside the mains. What they do is add ambiance information derived from Yamaha's DSP functions to simulate the spacial effects of different rooms that Yamaha has recorded. I understand that other receivers offer this same feature.

I tried the DSP both through the main speakers and through the extra presence speakers. The difference is huge and there is no comparison between sending the DSP to the mains as compared to using extra presence speakers. I also compared each to straight feed through the Dolby decoder. Running the 2 extra presence speakers gave me the most bang for the buck, so that will be where I concentrate this post. By running the extra 2 speakers for presence, I loose the ability to run 7.1, which is okay in my case because I don't have the room for those speakers in the back of my room.

The main thing when running in this configuration compared to straight Dolby is that the front wall seems to disappear and the soundstage gets very deep. It's like the screen is sitting in the middle of the soundstage. It also gives more separation to the recorded sounds in a big way. It doesn't seem to change anything coming from the center channel so the voices are still anchored to the screen. When I switch back to Dolby, the room seems to close in and everything sounds dull in comparison.

The more technically minded might point out that sound aberrations might occur from using this feature, but I cannot detect anything worth mentioning. The added spacial imagery is worth the price of admission. Of course, it might be different if your room is huge to begin with, I don't know.

I did show this to several people and all preferred using the extra channels.

So, have you tried it? If so, what is your take on this?

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

I tried it. It was ok, but I liked having the extra two speakers in the rear instead. I think that the new RX-A3010 lets you run all 9.1 (or 9.2) at the same time. My RX-A3000 won't unless I add an external amp.

---

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I never tried running 7.1 since I don't have the room. I suppose I could if I lay speakers on the floor behind the couch or mount them on the ceiling. But you like that better than the presence speakers. It would be nice to hear a complete setup with 7.1 and the presence speakers.

Anyway, you got my curiosity and I might just try it.

Thanks.

---

My room is a bit longer than it is wide. (14x26)
That may be why I prefer the one over the other.

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Presence speakers are not needed, not supported, and not beneficial for audio or soundtrack reproduction. It is gimmicky, and was rejected by the studios who preferred 7.1 "on the ground" instead of 9.1 "in the air".

Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way. It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system. You don't need ten speakers when eight will do just fine. We only need eight in the studio, and you only need eight at home.

---

I only have a 5.1 system at home, and I much prefer how it sounds compared to a movie theater. I'm not saying that a movie theater doesn't have its strengths, but given a choice of duplicating a movie theater in my home or to use more conventional speakers of high quality, I would hands down go the home route. First off, horns just don't do a good job. They're great for loudness and dynamics, but fall short on the level of details. No offense intended to horn lovers, it's just a personal preference and I'm sure there are some great horns out there.

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality. For their purpose, they are perfect, but in the home, there is better.

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all.

Strangely enough, I would never use DSP for my 2 channel system, but for surround, it seems to be useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I only have a 5.1 system at home, and I much prefer how it sounds compared to a movie theater. I'm not saying that a movie theater doesn't have its strengths, but given a choice of duplicating a movie theater in my home or to use more conventional speakers of high quality, I would hands down go the home route. First off, horns just don't do a good job. They're great for loudness and dynamics, but fall short on the level of details. No offense intended to horn lovers, it's just a personal preference and I'm sure there are some great horns out there.

---

Have you heard all horn loaded speakers including custom ones? I don't think so, so to make a statement that horns are only good for dynamic and loudness, and not good on details is a rather ignorant statement.

Quote:

---

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality. For their purpose, they are perfect, but in the home, there is better.

---

Steve, they use JBL or Klipsch THEATER speakers in the theater, and horn made for the home, in the home. The two are quite different not only sonically, but how it is implemented in each environment. These facts do not allow for generalization that are unsupported by lack of knowledge.

Quote:

---

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

---

Improves the sound, or colors and render the sound spatially inaccurate. You say you are for accuracy, but yet choose this option. There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage. Your words, and your choices do not jive very well.

Quote:

---

The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all.

---

This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic. There is a reason that the ITU-775 speaker setup standard works for both the studio, and the home environment. They both will rendered the soundtrack spatially accurate and translatable from one environment to another. When you start doing stupid things like using three center speakers, DSP that steer sound upward, and esoteric speakers for soundtrack playback, then you need band-aids like this to make it work. If you follow the ITU-B775 standard, you don't need DSP to fill in the sonic holes that alternate placement create.

Quote:

---

Strangely enough, I would never use DSP for my 2 channel system, but for surround, it seems to be useful.

---

I guess it is useful if you like colored and spatially inaccurate gimmicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Horns are mainly used in theaters because they take less power to run and they get loud. It's a compromise of quantity over quality.

---

They provided the necessary solution for when amplifier power was measured in single digits. As for quality, there is one brand which takes a very different approach from the rest of the crowd. While they are multi-way, all drivers radiate from a common mouth which provides consistent and controlled directivity across the frequency spectrum. Such is not found in traditional designs where each driver does its own thing and coherence is compromised. Like the professional Sound Lab speakers, they are designed to be used in arrays to widen the horizontal and vertical coverage. That company is Danley Sound Labs where the founder and chief designer is also a fan of full range electrostats since they also exhibit controlled frequency independent directivity.

Some stuff found here or visit the website.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account[ed] for on the dubbing stage.

---

Amen!

rw

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS. I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Have you heard all horn loaded speakers including custom ones? I don't think so, so to make a statement that horns are only good for dynamic and loudness, and not good on details is a rather ignorant statement.

This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic. There is a reason that the ITU-775 speaker setup standard works for both the studio, and the home environment. They both will rendered the soundtrack spatially accurate and translatable from one environment to another. When you start doing stupid things like using three center speakers, DSP that steer sound upward, and esoteric speakers for soundtrack playback, then you need band-aids like this to make it work. If you follow the ITU-B775 standard, you don't need DSP to fill in the sonic holes that alternate placement create.



I guess it is useful if you like colored and spatially inaccurate gimmicks.

---

No I haven't heard "All" horns, no-one has, but the many I have heard sound pretty decent, except they have, for lack of a better word, a hard sound to them. I have read about some horns that were supposed to be very good in relation to more conventional speakers. They sure were pretty! IMO I have never heard a horn sound as smooth and natural as other types of speakers. I'm also pretty sure there are some horns that will change my mind about them. I just haven't had the opportunity to hear those. As I said, it's a matter of taste. Some people don't like metal dome tweeters. There is no right or wrong. My opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans except for those that feel as I do. Besides, everybody has their preferences. I had one guy tell me that my Quad ESL speakers sounded "almost" as good as his Bose. I didn't blast him for his opinion. If that's what he believed, then for him, it was true. We both went on our merry way. Besides, this isn't about horns. The only reason I mentioned it was because IMO other types of speakers sound more realistic and natural and if accuracy is what your main objective is, then you could do better.

I have no doubt that in a comparison between my system and yours, your system will blow mine out of the water for the wow factor, but play it at a more reasonable level like 85db peak, and my "budget" system would be more pleasing to listen to. Well, that's what I think. There is nothing wrong with horns, it only a matter of preference. The same applies to dipole planers versus box speakers. People who own box speakers rarely hear the boxes, but dipole speaker owners sure do.

Once I was listening to some Avalon speakers and I was thinking they sounded pretty good until my friend stood between them and began singing. That's when I realized how artificial they sounded. I think Avalon speakers are pretty good, but there was no way to confuse them with the real thing. The same applies to almost every stereo system I've heard. As good as speakers can get, they all pretty much sound like stereo's. That, in no way, diminishes our enjoyment of them, but this epiphany I had brought me back to my senses. As I told you before, at today's level of technology, we are dealing with a flawed technology and we delude ourselves into thinking that it's better than what it is. So, when you talk about accuracy, you are talking about technology that still has a long way to go before we can use the term "accurate".

"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"

The thing you seem to ignore is that each room changes the sound, sometimes dramatically, and what you hear in the studio is not what people hear in their home. The only way it could is if the home owner had an exact duplicate of the recording studio "in their home", room and all. That fact alone destroys any chance of duplicating what you hear in the studio. The room is every bit as important as the audio system. You say that people shouldn't use DSP, but would you be just as critical about the "room" which can have an even more profound effect on the sound. Then there is the fact that no-one uses the same speakers at home as you use in the recording studio. What you hear on your studio monitors will sound different than what I hear at home. I have yet to hear two speakers of different brands sound alike, at any price point. So, even before you get into DSP, you have to deal with room effects and different voiced speakers. If the goal is to duplicate what you hear during a recording session, the battle is lost before it begins.

As for the "ITU-775 speaker setup standard ", that is exactly how my system is set up within the constraints of my room.

"The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all."

[This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic]

Really? Need I say more?

BTW, I picked up a sound pressure meter, as you suggested, and spec'd my speakers which I had adjusted by ear. They were all right on the money and needed no adjustments. It was money wasted, but I do like the conformation that it is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

(Mike pulls up a seat and some popcorn)

Wow! Look at that fuse burn! I wonder how long it will be till the big boom/bang.

(Sets a cooler down and opens a beer)

---

LMAO!

I couldn't stop laughing at what you said! I could actually visualize you sitting there with your popcorn and beer.

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjp735i

" I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

---

I wish my receiver would allow this. I like what the front presence speakers do and can only image what a rear pair would sound like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

They provided the necessary solution for when amplifier power was measured in single digits. As for quality, there is one brand which takes a very different approach from the rest of the crowd. While they are multi-way, all drivers radiate from a common mouth which provides consistent and controlled directivity across the frequency spectrum. Such is not found in traditional designs where each driver does its own thing and coherence is compromised. Like the professional Sound Lab speakers, they are designed to be used in arrays to widen the horizontal and vertical coverage. That company is Danley Sound Labs where the founder and chief designer is also a fan of full range electrostats since they also exhibit controlled frequency independent directivity.

Some stuff found here or visit the website.

rw

---

Interesting speakers. From some of the reviews, it looks like it could be a major contender for a very good home theater system. On person compared them with some very high end speakers and liked them better. I'm almost afraid to hear them because they may make me hate my system. It's happened before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Interesting speakers. From some of the reviews, it looks like it could be a major contender for a very good home theater system. On person compared them with some very high end speakers and liked them better. I'm almost afraid to hear them because they may make me hate my system. It's happened before...

---

Here's a pic of a guy using three SH-50s up front in his HT. :)

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjp735i

"Nobody really needs a DSP to artificially raise sound effects(where they were never positioned during mixing), and move them around in a unnatural way.It sounds artificial, and soundtracks were never created to be heard that way. When I see people preferring this kind of set up, I see them as making up for deficiencies within their speaker system."

This has to be the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. If you don't like the presence speakers fine, but to say they don't sound correct or artificial is BS.

---

It may be BS to YOU, but I heard a full Yamaha setup using soundtracks I mixed as demonstration materiel. These DSP put stuff all over the place, except for the correct place.

Quote:

---

I also have a full Yamaha surround system and use the presence speakers in the back instead of the front, Yamaha gives you this option and I love the way it sounds. Adds so much more to the movie. And they don't make up for deficiencies in the speaker system. If you don't have nice speakers then presence speakers are not going to help.

---

Well goody for you! This is another example of one mans floor versus another ceiling. You are correct, it does add something...it is call spatial errors, and fuzzy wuzzy sound. Since what is going to those speakers is bandwidth limited, there is no reason in the world to include good speakers to reproduce the sound these DSP produce.

Quote:

---

I post very little on this site because of post just like this. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not good.

---

This is not about what I like, but what is accurate and true to the soundtrack. If the soundtrack was not mixed on a system with height channels, then they should not be used with height channels. DSP's rerouting already mixed signals is not going to lead to accuracy, and will not work on all program material. I know, I have heard it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

No I haven't heard "All" horns, no-one has, but the many I have heard sound pretty decent, except they have, for lack of a better word, a hard sound to them. I have read about some horns that were supposed to be very good in relation to more conventional speakers. They sure were pretty! IMO I have never heard a horn sound as smooth and natural as other types of speakers. I'm also pretty sure there are some horns that will change my mind about them. I just haven't had the opportunity to hear those. As I said, it's a matter of taste. Some people don't like metal dome tweeters. There is no right or wrong. My opinion doesn't add up to a hill of beans except for those that feel as I do. Besides, everybody has their preferences. I had one guy tell me that my Quad ESL speakers sounded "almost" as good as his Bose. I didn't blast him for his opinion. If that's what he believed, then for him, it was true. We both went on our merry way. Besides, this isn't about horns. The only reason I mentioned it was because IMO other types of speakers sound more realistic and natural and if accuracy is what your main objective is, then you could do better.

---

The beginning of this comment should be prefaced with the words "in my very limited exposure to horn speakers". They make horn loaded speakers that don't even sound like horns, like my system in my signature. There is a whole world out there in regards to horn loaded speakers that you have no exposure to, and what makes your comments so laughable.

Quote:

---

I have no doubt that in a comparison between my system and yours, your system will blow mine out of the water for the wow factor, but play it at a more reasonable level like 85db peak, and my "budget" system would be more pleasing to listen to. Well, that's what I think. There is nothing wrong with horns, it only a matter of preference. The same applies to dipole planers versus box speakers. People who own box speakers rarely hear the boxes, but dipole speaker owners sure do.

---

Here is the problem with this statement. You have zero basis to make it. You have never heard my system play, whether loud of soft, so you have no idea of its performance against your "budget" system. This is a prime example of someone pulling crap out of the air, and throwing it against the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't, so perhaps one should stop throwing it against the wall.

Quote:

---

Once I was listening to some Avalon speakers and I was thinking they sounded pretty good until my friend stood between them and began singing. That's when I realized how artificial they sounded. I think Avalon speakers are pretty good, but there was no way to confuse them with the real thing. The same applies to almost every stereo system I've heard. As good as speakers can get, they all pretty much sound like stereo's. That, in no way, diminishes our enjoyment of them, but this epiphany I had brought me back to my senses. As I told you before, at today's level of technology, we are dealing with a flawed technology and we delude ourselves into thinking that it's better than what it is. So, when you talk about accuracy, you are talking about technology that still has a long way to go before we can use the term "accurate".

---

This statement has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water on a sidewalk. We are not trying to reproduce the real thing, we are trying to reproduce what a microphone captures. There is a difference. If a speaker can reproduce all that the microphone captures, it is an accurate speakers. Not all speakers can do this, but that is the goal.

Anyone who uses a an unbalanced voice next to a speaker reproducing music as a reference, needs his head checked.

"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"

Quote:

---

The thing you seem to ignore is that each room changes the sound, sometimes dramatically, and what you hear in the studio is not what people hear in their home.

---

Which is why I always check my studio mixes on my home systems. I have not ignored anything, you are assuming much.

Quote:

---

The only way it could is if the home owner had an exact duplicate of the recording studio "in their home", room and all. That fact alone destroys any chance of duplicating what you hear in the studio. The room is every bit as important as the audio system. You say that people shouldn't use DSP, but would you be just as critical about the "room" which can have an even more profound effect on the sound. Then there is the fact that no-one uses the same speakers at home as you use in the recording studio. What you hear on your studio monitors will sound different than what I hear at home. I have yet to hear two speakers of different brands sound alike, at any price point. So, even before you get into DSP, you have to deal with room effects and different voiced speakers. If the goal is to duplicate what you hear during a recording session, the battle is lost before it begins.

---

Again you are making a ton of assumptions, and propagating BS red herring arguments. I am not interested in matching a home "sound: with a studio sound. I am interested in whether a home system can capture everything we have mixed in the studio, room aside. I am not interested in the room signature of the home, but the resolution of the speaker system itself. Room signature is one thing, speaker resolution is another completely different thing. I don't have the two mixed up, but you do.

Quote:

---

As for the "ITU-775 speaker setup standard ", that is exactly how my system is set up within the constraints of my room.

---

Steven, either you follow the standard, or you don't. If the constraints of your room do not allow for it, then you are not following the standard PERIOD!

Quote:

---

"The fact is, that in your world, everything you do makes sense to you, but in the real world outside the studio, it gets much more complicated, the equipment is different, the rooms are different, and peoples expectations are different. There is no one shoe fits all."

---

I don't live in a either or world, I live in both worlds. I have a studio system AND several mutlichannel systems in my homes. This idea that I only live in one world is born out of more assumptions on your part. Don't assume, ask questions and get the facts, then make an opinion. This is how you keep the horse before the cart, and not the other way around.

Quote:

---

[This is such a BS statement. as it deifies logic]

Really? Need I say more?

---

Please don't, you have said quite enough.

Quote:

---

BTW, I picked up a sound pressure meter, as you suggested, and spec'd my speakers which I had adjusted by ear. They were all right on the money and needed no adjustments. It was money wasted, but I do like the conformation that it is right.

---

Now you are blowing smoke in my face. Our ears do not make good measuring or balancing devices, and science has proven this over and over again. Unless your hearing is can tell 72db from 75db(and nobody's can) then you are BS'ing me.

Steven, I am convinced that you think I am stupid as hell. There is no way in the world you can think otherwise, and present this kind of BS to me. Go tell this kind of BS to somebody completely ignorant of how the ear works, but please do not present this kind of crap to me.

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

Quote:

---

Sir T likes to be right and I know nothing I can say will win this discussion. Still, it has a certain amount of entertainment value.

---

There is something you can say to participate(this is not about winning, but presenting accurate information) in this discussion. How about some truth, facts, and science, and a little less of the anecdotal and BS.

Quote:

---

BTW, I have no ill feeling toward Sir T. I like him well enough, but the one thing in audio I learned a long time ago is that opinions are opinions and unless you're open minded about all this, heads will butt. In this case, I'm being just as bad as Sir T, but I know he enjoys it as much as I do. In his limited (constrained) way, he is trying to do the right thing. I think he means well.

---

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Quote:

---

Kind of reminds me of the discussions in the wire forums many years ago.

---

This is nothing like what happened in the wire forums many years ago.

Quote:

---

I feel embarrassed acting this way. In real life, I never argue with people. I figure life is too short to to get upset over such minor issues.

---

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

Quote:

---

If it gets to the point of name calling, the fun ends and I'll move on to more constructive endeavors.

Many years ago, my sister disagreed with me and in a moment of weakness, she called me a "butt head" (strong words for her). We still laugh about that after all these years.

---

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

The beginning of this comment should be prefaced with the words "in my very limited exposure to horn speakers". They make horn loaded speakers that don't even sound like horns, like my system in my signature. There is a whole world out there in regards to horn loaded speakers that you have no exposure to, and what makes your comments so laughable. .

---

I thought I made it clear that there were horns that didn't sound like horns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Here is the problem with this statement. You have zero basis to make it. You have never heard my system play, whether loud of soft, so you have no idea of its performance against your "budget" system. This is a prime example of someone pulling crap out of the air, and throwing it against the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't, so perhaps one should stop throwing it against the wall.

---

You're right, but aren't you the one that keeps knocking my systems configuration and yet have never heard it either? You tell me that more than one center channel is wrong on all accounts and you tell me that DSP is wrong on all accounts. I'm just feeding back what you gave me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

This statement has the profoundness of a tea spoon of water on a sidewalk. We are not trying to reproduce the real thing, we are trying to reproduce what a microphone captures. There is a difference. If a speaker can reproduce all that the microphone captures, it is an accurate speakers. Not all speakers can do this, but that is the goal.

---

People don't care what the microphone captures, they want a reproduction of the real event. Isn't that what this whole audio thing is about? I'm surprised to hear anyone say what you just did. I don't think any speaker manufacturer would say their speakers are so good they sound just like the microphone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Anyone who uses a an unbalanced voice next to a speaker reproducing music as a reference, needs his head checked.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

"There is nothing accurate about DSP based spatial enhancement not account for on the dubbing stage"

---

Perhaps so, but like I said, if people feel it improves that sound, then perhaps the recording engineer could have done a better job. BTW, last night I performed the ultimate test, the girl friend test. I switched the DSP off and on without telling her what I was doing and asked her which she preferred. She choose the DSP. I asked her why and she replied, "it made everything sound clearer." So there you go...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Again you are making a ton of assumptions, and propagating BS red herring arguments. I am not interested in matching a home "sound: with a studio sound. I am interested in whether a home system can capture everything we have mixed in the studio, room aside. I am not interested in the room signature of the home, but the resolution of the speaker system itself. Room signature is one thing, speaker resolution is another completely different thing. I don't have the two mixed up, but you do.

---

There you go, insulting me. Are you telling me that if you moved your home system into my comparably small room that it will sound the same as it does at your house?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Steven, either you follow the standard, or you don't. If the constraints of your room do not allow for it, then you are not following the standard PERIOD!

---

As I have told you, I have my system set up to the standard that you mentioned, front speakers 30 degrees from center, back speakers within 20 degrees behind the seating position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

I don't live in a either or world, I live in both worlds. I have a studio system AND several mutlichannel systems in my homes. This idea that I only live in one world is born out of more assumptions on your part. Don't assume, ask questions and get the facts, then make an opinion. This is how you keep the horse before the cart, and not the other way around.

---

I envy you for that, but as an end user, I have to live with what someone else "feels" is correct. Being that I pay money for their services, I feel that I have a right to dictate my expectations to them. You would never let a home decorator have free reign on what they do to your home, you'd want some control over the outcome, wouldn't you? How is this any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Now you are blowing smoke in my face. Our ears do not make good measuring or balancing devices, and science has proven this over and over again. Unless your hearing is can tell 72db from 75db(and nobody's can) then you are BS'ing me.

Steven, I am convinced that you think I am stupid as hell. There is no way in the world you can think otherwise, and present this kind of BS to me. Go tell this kind of BS to somebody completely ignorant of how the ear works, but please do not present this kind of crap to me.

---

I BS you not, but after 40+ years of careful listening, I should have gotten something out of it. Don't you think? Anybody can do anything reasonably well if they put the time and effort in it.

I do not think you're stupid. I think you are a very smart man and whether I agree with you or not, I respect your opinion. I also think you know a great deal more than I do. The difference between you and I is that in your world, everything is already mapped out, defined to the nth degree and there is no room for any variance.

I have lived my entire life listening to experts declare one thing or another as fact, yet years latter, I heard many of these same people use the phrase, "we used to believe".

It sounds to me that you put your heart and soul into your work and have pride in what you do. I commend you on that and feel that you fully deserve that praise.

From my perspective, I've listened to speakers designed in so many ways that it's mind boggling, monopole, dipole, bipole, planers, point sources, horns, electrostats, plasma, line arrays, and mixtures of these technologies. The list is much larger than this, but the point is that they all sound different in one way or another. Some people claim that the ideal speaker is a point source and their logic is valid. Some people love horns because they are very dynamic and that is strong reason to want horns. Without going on infinitum, each has it's strengths "and" weaknesses. There is no right or wrong, The only "real" metric that we can measure a system by is reality, what we hear from life around us. Even so, people buy what they think sounds good to them regardless of that metric.

The same applies to what you do. You have a certain criteria that you go by when making a product, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks it as good as it gets. Apparently, we want more than you can offer and so we resort to DSP or some other artificial magic. Right or wrong, if we think it sounds better, than it does, at least to us. You need to accept that and not be so critical.

Respects...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

I really hate it when people speak as if you are not in the room.

For me, its not about you, I have no interest in that. It is about your words, and your words only. If your words are stupid, I am going to say they are stupid. If your words are wrong, then I am going to say they are wrong. Steven as a person does not interest me one bit.

---

I wasn't talking to you at the time.

As for the last part, you're just being mean. It would have been better to use the term ignorant, not stupid.

Let me tell you about "experts"...

The word is at best, ambiguous. It doesn't meant that that person knows everything about a subject, only that they know a great deal about it. The world is full of experts that diametrically disagree with each other. Given this "fact", whom you choose to believe is a matter of a persons personal sensibilities. It also implies that there is more than one way to interpret the same thing. You, being an "expert", should be able to question your positions when presented with contrary opinions. If someone says it sounds better this way or that way, even if it goes against what you think, it is a valid statement. I have no doubt that DSP would screw up the steering that you have mentioned so often, but is steering the most important aspect of what we hear at home? Apparently not if we feel that DSP improves the sound. DSP is not perfect, stereo is not perfect, and surround is not perfect.

Audio hasn't been around for that long to declare it perfect. When audio began, mono was considered the cats meow, but that wasn't good enough. Stereo made its debut and it was declared state of the art, then surround popped up and now it's the standard by which we judge audio. In 10 years or a hundred years, perhaps our entire wall will be a speaker comprised of thousands of point sources like a TV screen. The point is that it keeps getting better and when we look back at what used to be the standard, we would shake our heads in disbelief that we thought what came before was good sound. We can argue all we want about present day technologies, but compared to what is to come, it is grossly inferior. We will develop new theories and new technologies that haven't been imagined yet. Many of the theories that we base our present day understanding on will be wholly inadequate. So I ask you, what is the point of arguing about this? We should just enjoy what we have and not worry about perfection, which doesn't exist.

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

As for DSP, well that too is a personal choice. Every room is different and the same system in a small room will sound much different than in a large room. Why should I deny myself something that I feel improves the sound? Why should I let some recording engineer dictate what I should like. Why don't recording engineers do a better job so that we don't have to resort to DSP?

---

Best set of questions in the thread. I'm awaiting the answers.

Interesting how almost every other statement Steve made was picked apart, but these very important questions were not addressed.

The fact is, we all have to take whatever the RE jams down our throats whether we agree with it or not. If we don't agree, we all have the options to change it to what we as individuals like. Everybody's hearing is different as well as what they like. There is no one way for all in audio or we wouldn't have all the options we have. I don't give a rats ass as to what something measures. Does it sound good to ME? That is the only thing that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

There are opinions, and there are fact Steven. You are long on opinions, and VERY short on facts, and that is your problem. For me, this is not personal, it's about the information you present. Open minds are good, but they are also open for misinformation and outright BS. I have an open mind for accurate information, experience, and educated opinions. My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers), and anecdotal opinions that are totally unscientific.

Audio is a minor issue outside an audio forum. Inside an audio forum it rises to a major issue because that is why we are here. If we allow this website to be dominated by uneducated anecdotal opinions that have no basis in science, then this website loses its value.

---

What facts?

There are so many speaker configurations, so many amplifier topologies, so many room affects, so many ways to record an event, so many... Well you get the point. When you mix this all together, where is the science? You can make two speakers that spec out almost identically, but they sound totally different. You can use amplifiers that spec out almost identically, yet, they too may sound different. You can use an amp that specs out worse than another, but sounds better. When you mix something on your console, you mix according to what you hear on your speakers so by the time I get it, it sounds different because my speakers are different. I will agree that "science" will get you in the ball park, but it's our ears that make the final determination.

There is no way for "science" to accurately predict what our ears will hear, at least not yet. If someone states that what they hear is good, it's not anecdotal, it's a fact, to "them". You cannot quantify that in scientific terms. Isn't that what this is all about? How does it sound? The emotional response of an individual to the quality of a recording or an audio system cannot be put into numbers, yet that is the final goal. Mr. Bose amassed a fortune, not by pursuing science, but addressing the human factor.

When I watch a movie, I sometimes wonder why the front soundstage is so compressed toward the speakers. It doesn't have depth like it would in real life. In a real scenario I can tell if someone is closer or further away, even if only by a couple of feet, but I don't hear this in movies except on rare occasions. I know this is a result of how they mic the movie, but that's hardly accurate. Sometimes I may be watching people talking during a rain storm and all the rain is heard in the front. Some recordings use the surround speakers to bring the rain into the room to make it more realistic. We are at the mercy of the recording engineer. This isn't science, it's a decision of the engineer to try and make the movie sound as realistic as possible. Sometimes, when a door opens off screen, the engineer steers the sound hard right or left, which sounds unrealistic. I could go on and on about how the sound of many movies could be produced better, but the point is that it's not science.

I love science, but science is not everything when your throw in the human factor.

When you admire that shiny new car, is that science? You get the point.

If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

One more thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

My mind is closed to crap I know is not truthful(like your ears were perfect in balancing your speakers)

---

You should be able to do this better than I. My hearing is not perfect, but I can tell when something is louder than another. Quite frankly, if I can do it, then I would suspect that most people could do the same. As for you thinking I wasn't truthful, what gives you the right to judge me? What purpose would it serve to not be honest? Quite frankly, I was amazed when I found the system to be spot on. Why do you think I bought the db meter? It wasn't to prove I was perfect, it was to, on your advice, to correct the system accurately because I didn't believe I could do it by ear. To be honest "again", I trust the meter more than I trust my hearing. Frankly, if you find it difficult to balance speaker levels by ear, what does that imply about your eq or mixing abilities? A musician doesn't have to use a meter to adjust their guitar strings. Are you saying that they actually can't do it without a meter? I'm being mean here, but you deserve it for what you said.

Let's not jack around anymore. Name some of your work and I will buy it and critique it and let you know how you are doing from an end users view point. I would love to do this for you and I will be fair and unbiased. Seriously! It will be fun. If you think I will criticize you just to be mean, I won't. I imagine that others will listen to your stuff too and if I am off track, they will let me know and besides, I don't want people to think I'm just being a jerk and that "would" make me look stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

What facts?



If you were speaking about the spaghettification of matter near the event horizon of a black hole, that is pure science, but when there is a human factor involved, such as how we perceive sound, everything changes.

---

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

As an example of horns that do not sound like horns take a listen to the JBL Array or LS series or the Klipsch Paladium. They still may not disperse like domes but if you didn't look you couldn't tell they were horns by listening.

---

I'm going to make a point to listen to these and perhaps others. You've peaked my interest. I would love to change my opinion because horns have two qualities that I admire, dynamics and efficiency.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

---

I agree. I've always believed just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

---

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

---

No, but my ears and brain can let me hear something differently than yours. I also may like the way something sounds that you don't. I also may not like the way something sounds that some SE likes and thinks everyone should like.

And just because a measurement instrument can register something I can't hear or identify, what does that have to do with whether it something sounds good to me?

You can't force everyone to like the sound of something some SE says sounds good to him.

Again, that is why there are thousands of speakers, amps, ect...because everyone likes the sound of something different, otherwise we would all just get a Bose Wave and be done with all this nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Hyfi, can you ear identify a 60hz sinewave without any measuring instruments? Can you ears identfy a 60hz sinewave being played back at 75db without any measuring instruments?

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

---

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

There is no science or measurement process as of yet that can come close to what each individual human ear can hear and what each individual human brain can interpret as to what they heard.

We are now delving into the realm of the great cable debate where if it can't be measured, it just can't be. That is the true BS in this hobby. Every human ear and brain deals with the same sound a little bit differently, no matter what it measures on a man made device.

---

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but when I was in the military service my job was dealing with VHF radio which was connected to phones on either end. If we wanted to ring one of the phones we would open the circuit and then we had a choice of pushing a button to make it ring or by whistling a 1,000hz tone into the handset which we routinely did. Everyone could do it. Apparently, we could identify that tone without a meter. As for saying it was at 75db, we never gave that any thought, but I suppose that with training, everyone could get pretty close. That last part is just pure assumption on my part.

I will agree that using a meter would be more accurate over the long haul, but I would think that musicians would be able to do it fairly easily within a certain amount of accuracy. Even a meter has limits on it's accuracy too.

Maybe this isn't what you're referring to?

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he is trying to say we can't trust our ears as to what sounds good and we should only be trusting measurements from a man made device to tell us what sounds good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

---

LOL, Did you see this on CBC the other night?

Doc Zone - Episode - The Trouble with Experts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

This is one area that the ears fail, and measuring instruments succeed.

---

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own a SPL meter and several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

When I worked in CBS's tape facility we used a 500Hz tone to set levels every morning on our tape duplicators. As a newby I had to run each tape through a computer dedicated for reading levels and EQ. Daily for over a year I listened, tested and set levels on 150 cassette and 20 8-Track duplicators.

I also performed EQ on our QA and A/B test rooms weekly. I would know a 500Hz tone. I would also know 1KHz, 2KHz, 6.3KHz, 10KHz, 12KHz and 16KHz (standard test frequencies on TEAC test tapes).

Our A/B test engineer had a better ear than I. I was the tech responsible for her hardware. Once she said her 500Hz level test tape was distorted. I couldn't hear it, but when tested it had 2% distortion. Normal spec was +/- .5%.

Most of us listen for pleasure. From my experience those who listen more critically, don't enjoy the music as much. With tape it was very difficult, there's so much that can go wrong bias distortion, scrape flutter, sibilance, wow. Knowing what to listen for at times spoiled the music for me. My condolences to reviewers who's job it is to find fault in different designs. They're always comparing to a reference and finding differences. In the case of tapes, ignorance is bliss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I certainly agree with your example. Which is why I own several test CDs which contain a wide range of tests including phase, frequency and jitter audibility. For optimizing speaker position for bass, I have test tones at every frequency from 10 to 300 hz. Perhaps you have a room mode at 59 hz.

On the other hand, how do you quantify the following parameters with meaningful metrics that correlate directly to what experienced ears perceive?

Distortion spectra of dynamic signals
Apparent image width
Frequency selective coherence

By no means do I dismiss science as every good audio designer uses it as the foundation for their products. At the same time, I'm convinced that simple numeric analysis fails to convey the entirety of the listening experience. You really need both. I agree with Nelson Pass' guidance and reminder of something Mr. Spock said:

“Instruments only measure what they were designed to measure.”

NP on distortion

rw

---

I don't totally dismiss science or tools that help with system setup.

This discussion was about what sounds good to someone and Sir T is implying that we all should think the same thing sounds good and only what an SE tells us we should like.

My argument is that MY EARS and BRAIN may like the way something sounds regardless of any scientific measurements. Your ears and brain may not like the same thing.

So who is right? Nobody, we all listen to what WE like and not what someone tells us we should like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

---

I listen to what my ears and brain tell me I like, not what someone tells me I should like, no mater what boner fides they have.

Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.

Sounds like sheep dip to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

What? Are you & Steven Tea Partiers? What I hate is a dismissive attitude towards science, engineering, and professional expertise.

Sir T is an expert and has bona fides to prove it. If he says something contrary to you un- or semi-informed opinion you at least ought at least to do some self-questioning.

---

I value science over most anything else, and I don't reject anything he says as long as it is science, but he is dwelling beyond that.

As an example, he states that ambiance channels distort the steering in a surround system and I have no doubt that he is correct, but the issue is whether t sounds better, or not. He says that it ruins intelligibility, but I and every one else I've demonstrated it to voiced the opposite opinion. Do I shut off my ambiance speakers and delude myself that it sounds better, or do I accept what I hear as better. Believe me, I tried to do just that. I've repeatedly shut off the ambiance channels and listened intently to verify that I wasn't talking out my butt.

On the other hand, I've used EQ's with stereo systems and while putting a smiley face on the controls did produce a pleasant sound, It ruined the sound as compared to no EQ. Strangely, when I would initially turn the EQ off, it sounded flat, but after listening to it for a short while and letting my ears adjust, it sounded much better without the EQ.

I expected the same thing to occur with the ambiance channels, but it didn't happen.

I'm not just sitting here at my computer just being obstinate. I've listened to what he had to say and I tried it his way. There are moments where DSP is distracting, but the vast majority of the time, the improvement is worth any negative effects it may produce.

I have no disrespect for the man, but when it come to the human factor, he disregards that completely. His viewpoint is mainly from the recording and mixing side of the equation and he totally disregards the end user aspect of the equation. He may be the finest recording engineer that has ever lived, but his focus doesn't seem to include the user portion of the equation. He assumes that his work is perfect and anything that changes that is inherently wrong. I wouldn't use DSP if I didn't feel that the recording was lacking in some way.

He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. The fact is that I did just as I said I did, and I see no reason why most people couldn't do the same. This made me question his abilities, but rightfully so. Another thing is that when we were talking about mixing a mono channel into two speakers he told me that he had to EQ the h-ll out of it. I'm sure there is a good reason for doing it as he mentioned, but he doesn't use science to do it. He does it by ear with no meters to help him. That's hardly science.

The bottom line is that I welcome everything he has to say, but it's not enough for him to voice his opinion and then let us make our own choices. He makes it a point to repeatedly condemn every choice we make. If his condemnations were solely focused on the scientific aspect of our statements, I would not engage him in further discourse, but the majority of what he talks about is opinion and supposition. We have a right to our own opinion and supposition too. Don't you think?

I understand the reason for your post and I commend you on trying to do the right thing, but apparently we are seeing this issue differently. That's okay and understandable.

The last thing is that I have a different view of "experts". They are people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject than the general public, but the fact that all "experts" have other "experts", in the same field, that disagree with them tells me that there is a great deal of opinion floating around and we should take an "experts" viewpoint with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

...
He can be rude and belligerent if we don't agree with him. He's called me stupid and accused me of lying. He has also accused me of calling him stupid, which, if you read my posts, I have only complimented him. Sure, I disagree with him on certain things, but that is not a reflection upon his intelligence. When we were speaking about level matching by ear, he made it clear that it was impossible, hence, calling me a liar. ....
....

---

True about rude & belligerent when we get him fired up. Also, Sir T has occasionally called a person a "liar" when "mistaken" would be the more appropriate term. But we be charitable not to confuse his interpersonal style with his message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyfi

...
Are you trying to say that whatever Sir T says is much like the word of god and we should all just accept his opinion and follow it.
...

---

Nope, I didn't say that, nor try to say it.

What I said was we should listen to experts and question our own, more limited knowledge.