Acoustic suspension sound in 2015?

[Irvrobinson]

forums do require callouses.

No, they require knowing what you don't know.

 

[Swerd]

… nit-picking SOB's…

And we're immensely proud of it.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it .

I hope he comes back. From the threads I have seen him in, he is a sharp guy with good experience. But forums do require callouses.

I agree. But he also seems better at dishing it out than he is at taking it. To convince people you're any good at nit-picking, you have to be able to take it as well.

Those of us in either engineering or science all know people who think they know everything. They're unfortunately common. The really good ones are those who know what they DON'T know, and then go about finding out more about it.

 

[Seth=L]

It seems like there must be a subtext to what just happened here. I wouldn't believe fmw would have responded that way unless there's something we are missing, or is it just me?

In the context of this thread Dennis' comment seemed to me to be a friendly joke.

 

[Swerd]

It seems like there must be a subtext to what just happened here. I wouldn't believe fmw would have responded that way unless there's something we are missing, or is it just me?

There certainly may be something we missed, but this was similar enough to other events we've all seen to guess it was about not enough callouses.

In the context of this thread Dennis' comment seemed to me to be a friendly joke.

Also seemed that way to me.

 

[slipperybidness]

Those of us in either engineering or science all know people who think they know everything. They're unfortunately common. The really good ones are those who know what they DON'T know, and then go about finding out more about it.

Agreed!

"I don't know the answer but let me get back to you" is a great response in this type of field! Much better than trying to BS your way through it.

I'm not really in this argument about nit-picking, but I do want to emphasize that agreement on terminology is absolutely critical in any scientific (or pseudo-scientific) field! You must be 100% certain that the word means the exact same thing to everyone involved in the field or in the argument! If not, then how can you even start to debate a relevant topic?

It's so important that we have entire entities dedicated to such matters! NIST and IUPAC are great examples, their entire purpose is to be sure "everyone is on the same page".

 

[Irvrobinson]

What was all that about? I guess it's time to move on.

I wouldn't worry about it. One other time fmv got angry and went away was over something I posted. I don't even remember what it was. Assertion is a brave act on this forum, and requires willingness to accept being wrong sometimes. It happens to everyone now and then.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I wouldn't worry about it. One other time fmv got angry and went away was over something I posted. I don't even remember what it was. Assertion is brave act on this forum, and requires willingness to accept being wrong sometimes. It happens to everyone now and then.

I don't like to tick people off, and I wasn't trying to, but you can't debate by simply asserting. Anhow, Haaappppy New Year everyone!

 

[Swerd]

Assertion is brave act on this forum, and requires willingness to accept being wrong sometimes. It happens to everyone now and then.

True, but during all this, we lost the OP, AAinPB. He had asked, "does anyone have any thoughts on new speakers that have that acoustic suspension sound--very smooth with tight bass (not boomy or overwhelming)."

KEW did direct him to a previous thread on that same subject. After that, all we could do was talk about terminology, acoustic suspension vs. sealed cabinet. Although there is a real difference, as Dennis pointed out, I think the OP was probably interested in sealed cabinet bass vs. ported bass.

Based on his original words, I think the OP may have been interested in bass sound resulting from a woofer cabinet design with in low Q = 0.7 or less. Although this can be achieved with either sealed or ported designs, it is true that many commercially available ported designs are deliberately built to exaggerate bass with a Q > 1.0. Too bad we lost him, because that would have made a more interesting thread.

 

[KEW]

[QUOTE="slipperybidness, post: 1111044, member: ]

I'm not really in this argument about nit-picking, but I do want to emphasize that agreement on terminology is absolutely critical in any scientific (or pseudo-scientific) field! You must be 100% certain that the word means the exact same thing to everyone involved in the field or in the argument! If not, then how can you even start to debate a relevant topic?.[/QUOTE]

Are you nit picking my use of nit picking?

Where's the argument?
No one has denied that we nit pick and your post seems to endorse it as a requirement of the objectives of this forum...which was the substance of my post.

 

[Seth=L]

I wouldn't worry about it. One other time fmv got angry and went away was over something I posted. I don't even remember what it was. Assertion is a brave act on this forum, and requires willingness to accept being wrong sometimes. It happens to everyone now and then.

It happens to me now and again. I just throw my keyboard across the room. It's not a big deal.