Skunk said the following on 01/26/2006 11:21 PM: > > Sorry to be vague and alarming, it was mostly directed at you- as Robin > will likely continue to believe there is no such thing as stereo bass > until the day he dies.
Sorry, are you living in a parallel universe where the laws of physics are different? Below a certain point, low frequencies are omni-directional. End of story. > I do thank you for at least jumping in and adding a caveat to his > belief, but your brief history of driver sizes and terminology wasn't > much help. Pat's "brief history" was very helpful and confirmed my "belief". Below a certain point, low frequencies are omni-directional. End of story. > There are a plethora of ways stereo subs beat mono, on almost any > speaker. Even full rangers that 'do' 20 hz can benefit from the > adjustability of a seperate subwoofer cabinet. What if the best imaging > comes from speaker placement that excites too many/not enough bass > modes? Time to compromise. That's a different argument completely. Sure, >1 sub might get a better result, but it's nothing to do with stereo imaging. Using two subs doesn't mean you have "stereo subs". > The bottom line is, ezkcdude would notice the difference with his > speakers or I wouldn't have bothered writing it. I would love to type a > well informed response that actually proved my point- but I don't have > time. He may well do; I didn't suggest otherwise. Again, nothing to do with stereo. I suggest you do take the time to construct a well-considered response. You sound like you're talking crap most of the time, so some rationale to back it up would be helpful. If only so we can put you right. Robin Bowes B.Eng(Hons) Electroacoustics _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
