One thing I find especially interesting about this change is the content of George Short's lengthy message about the reasons for discontinuing DIY sales. Of course a major factor is the increasing material costs and the shrinking of the DIY market, but all this is economics 101.

For an interesting discussion, what do you guys think about "rubber chickens"?

• George's Statement

As to the comments about "rubber chickens and the mis-information superhighway", I couldn't agree more. But what the writer suggests is the cause is only half right, in my opinion. The whole loudspeaker industry has long suffered from "rubber chickens", most because it is fairly low-tech. I'm not talking about the physics of the matter but rather the construction of the machine itself. It's a simple machine, really, and a working model can be built by almost anyone. It won't throw a rod or catch fire if done improperly. Worst thing it will do is burn a speaker coil or sound bad. So this tends to invite all sorts of types as manufacturers, with varying levels and abilities. This isn't limited to DIY - Look around at the commercial products that have been sold over the years and you'll see what I mean.

I think his discussion of "rubber chickens" was both arrogant and amusing. Since by his definition I am probably a "rubber chicken" it is somewhat amusing since some of the most uninformed and downright technically incompetent people I have met and discussed audio with are people in the industry itself (and of course the people on AA). If you only rely on printed texts and journal articles in this day and age you are going to be way behind the current latest technology, the Internet has changed the way information (both good and bad) is distributed and you need to adapt. My personal opinion is technical society publication is going to become the tool of only the academics and ont the engineers, not much applicable output. At the one DIY gathering I went to a few years ago, I was really impresswd with the technical knowledge, dedication, and efforts made at producing some very fine speaker systems (I guess those people are some of his competition and also "rubber chickens").

I lost a lot of respect for George Short after reading his reasons. Why not just state that the economics are not there for his DIY line and move on. If he has not succeeded the reason looks back at him every morning in the mirror. Bottom line is that there are many thriving businesses, just like his, and he could not compete.

Not trying to be harsh but that is my opinion and reaction,

Martin

But I do agree that there is a lot of rubbish spouted about on the internet, and that audio is one of the worst-case subjects for pseudio-science jibberish. And you have to admit that there are some laymen that are adamant about the most errant nonsense. They can get pretty argumentative, and some even proudly boast about their lack of technical abilities, as if to equate "ignorance" with "open-mindedness". It can get pretty frustrating when a person attacks you almost violently with an "Earth is flat" argument, as I know you well know.

Still, I'm not sure which is worse - The arrogant layman that can't even spell "acoustics" or the charlatan industry member selling half-truths. One in particular I know of proudly boasts that he is a "myth buster" when he himself pushes more myths upon the industry than anyone else I know. Gotta laugh at that!

Everything you say is in agreement with what I feel, although I try not to get sucked into arguements any more. I state my case and leave it at that, I'll answer questions but no way will I debate foolishness with a fool. I just don't care anymore about winning useless arguements. Lots of strong opinions, both right and wrong, every place you look.

The Internet is an amazing source of information, again both right and wrong. I find that the immediate exchange of info and the ability to interact with people all over the world makes up for some of the bad experiences. You just need to think about what you are reading and question its validity.

I have had internet friends submit articles on TL's to the AES and they have been rejected. I have read several reviewer's comments and reasoning for not accepting the article and in my opinion the reviewers had no business saying anything, they were completely incompetent and strongly biased. On the other hand, I have seen totally useless papers published in technical journals by coworkers (with their bosses and other managers as coauthors of course) which add no value to the engineering community and are basically self promoting or just advertisements for the company. So in my opinion "rubber chickens" represent a certain percentage of any group and having something in or rejected by a journal is not the final measure of its worth. George has set very snobbish and restrictive boundaries about where he will accept information.

New Stuff on my site :

www.quarter-wave.com/Project07/Project07.html

www.quarter-wave.com/General/Stand_Mount.pdf

Martin

I'm with you on George's comments on the DEQX.

In one case he is reporting what a customer stated to him so it is not as a first hand user.

Dennis Murphy--he is the talented classical music trained crossover designer who posts on the Madisound board and who is a full-time economist--has worked with Jim Salk on many of his designs and states that the benefit of DEQX is that a competent user can equal the best passive crossover in a matter of minutes vs. a passive crossover which would consume much more time (think weeks, months, etc.) to design, build, and tweak. The user does need to understand some core values for loudspeaker design and to be able to make decent measurements. My point is that one can not just use any random combination of drivers and shoddy measurements and expect the DEQX machine to derive a quality speaker.

Bottom line I can say that digital processing will continue to make high dollar component passive crossovers obsolete. Passive crossovers vs. digital ones are analogous to film cameras in a digital photography world.

Jim