Unfair treatment

[Timber_MG]

We will seek AVS moderators' comments on that and decide on appropriate action going forward. I find it difficult to believe that someone active in the commercial market would engage others in such a manner.

We try to foster a community here, and the fact that many people know others here in person makes this a more closely bound forum imo.

Now for the pub meet...as a prerequisite for joining? Sheesh

[Vaughan]

Am I being banned now ? Over something said in a different forum over different circumstances ?

Regards,

[GearSlave]

Hehe, I missed quite a lot it seems

Vaughn, I think it's pointless to regurgitate what others have said on the matter. But, I just want to leave you with this one last thought:

All the participants, personally and professionally, frequent this forum as they all share the passion for this hobby. And let's be honest, it's just a hobby. I don't see any local manufacturers here with Ferrari's... Soooo, to the point: People come here to have fun and to learn. They don't come here to witness arguments ad-infinitum. I'm using you as an example here, but this goes for everyone. Let's just show others the courtesy, as they show you and I think we can all just get along fine. The last thing any of us want is that this place fizzles out because visiting here requires a flame suit...

[kay]

Vaughan, unfortunately the suggestion for a ban has come up on more than one occasion. Purely based on what you've said and who you've upset on this here forum. And no, I won't remove the links to the AVSForum threads because I think they provide a lot of context to your complaint and the discussion thereof.

I'd like to offer a suggestion - unlock the vented subwoofer thread and let's see how things progress from this point onwards....

I feel the same way but I leave that up to Martin & Gert. AudioEngineer summed up the thread much better than me in reply #3. I can completely understand why Martin & Hennie et al would not bother arguing further.

[Shonver]

Hey! Why not all let's gang up on Vaughn?

Seriously, all he is guilty of is questioning "facts" that do not (to him) make sense. I think we all have that prerogative. What complicated matters is his bullish stance on his beliefs. Strangely, no-one has given him all the facts (or, rather, they have not been pulled together into a coherent picture), except point out to him that he lacks complete understanding of the subject. So, here, let me try...

1. (Martin pointed out that) ports produce non-linear distortion.
2. The thing about non-linear distortion is that it produces harmonics. These distortion products are not band-limited, as they have their own generation mechanism.
3. These distortion products are not resonance-based (else it would linear distortion), but related to the acoustic interfaces that the port sees. If they were mere resonances, then Vaughn's assertion that band-limiting would solve the problem would suffice (but see point 2.).
4. To filter out the harmonics (2.), Hennie pointed to acoustic filtering, and also to its non-feasibility (at the frequencies involved).

Does that sum it up?

Next question: To what extent does port flaring ameliorate the problem?

[kay]

This post mostly belongs in the original thread You raise a valid point though, and I have to take yours and Vaughan's side on this. A lot of the counter arguments were very high-level and to the tune of "if you'd done electrical engineering 101, you'd know this". I'm not an EE and can't follow the discussion. But I admit I didn't try very hard either. And that's partly why I am in support of unlocking the thread to continue the discussion - with a bit more respect for one another, obviously.

[Byrd]

Shaun bru
That sounds more like knowing than questioning.

[Vaughan]

I'll also ask that my vented thread be re-opened as I believe that the discussion can continue. It was only really at the very end that things got a little out of hand, before that point I think the points in the thread were constructive, in my opinion.

Regards,

[Timber_MG]

The thread will be re-opened at some time in the future, but until then I remind people that it is Friday...and Gert and I don't really have the time to clean up this latest episode just yet.

So I suggest we all run out to a beer and enjoy ourselves.

Those who feel they need to contribute to the topic will get their change in due time.

[kay]

Guys, please keep the technical comments out of this thread. Martin will unlock the original thread if and when he feels appropriate.

EDIT: I've moved the mostly-OT replies to the original thread. Please stay on topic within this thread if there's anything more to be said, and let's all have a nice Friday

[Ampdog]

It so often rests not on what was said, but THE WAY IN WHICH.

There is another lesson I have only recently learnt. As someone moderately trained in communication/diplomacy (I represented the country abroad on occasion) and occasionally having given talks on the subject, I am so sorry that the following statement came to me so late in life.

Arch-Bishop Tutu quoted his father (a school principal):

"DON'T RAISE YOUR VOICE. IMPROVE YOUR ARGUMENT."

Wish I had said that.

It would look to me that where these points come second, a certain standard of dignity suffers. Especially tragic as good arguments are then the first to suffer.

Vaughan, this is not about others in the first place. [And not 'teaming up' against you; hopefully I have been objective in the past, but you opened the door (thread)]. If some habit/impatience/manner-of-communication threatens what you have to contribute, surely it is worth-while to sit down and consider whether that is worth the cost? In the technical field the way-in-which clearly can be adapted without affecting content, truth, originality. Successful people need to do it all the time. So why risk it - go figure, as the saying goes!

Regards

Edit: Typo

[AudioEngineer]

Or as one of my favourite quotes go...

"I'm not young enough to know everything", Oscar Wilde

Use it, don't use it!   

[Vaughan]

Hi everyone,

If some habit/impatience/manner-of-communication threatens what you have to contribute, surely it is worth-while to sit down and consider whether that is worth the cost?

See, this is the way I see it. I was told to educate myself among other things in a thread that was (and still is) not so clear cut. When I tried to debate those points further then automatically I was seen as the enemy especially when a big time engineer stepped in. Of course, I can't argue against an engineer because I'm not an engineer, hence my points don't gain much interest and are ignored.

Understandable.

The discussion then carried over to AVS which have individuals there with arguably more experience in the field (several respectable reviewers and designers participated) and my views were supported by their remarks. What does that tell ? That tells me that :

a) Some here with presumably lots of experience are quick to judge.

b) Think that because I'm not an engineer that my comments are not worth debating and therefore are automatically incorrect.

So please forgive me if I got a little impatient but the discussion seemed very one-sided and the fact that moderator intervention popped up the minute I tried to defend my points just added fuel to the fire for me. If anything, the topic of discussion has taught me some interesting things about some of the experienced members here.

Regards,

[Vaughan]

On a separate note, I'm not going to blame myself because Stuart left. He made a bunch of claims he couldn't defend and then left. We asked him for measurements on his subwoofer that could extend down to 12 Hz in his 1.5 cu ft box and none were presented.

Then I'm blamed for him leaving ? I think that's nonsense to be honest.

Regards,

[Bates]

I wonder... is this a case where a single fact can ruin a good argument