Uh oh… I Think These Are Gorgeous - PAP

[James Edward]

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I find these beautiful, and not outrageously priced. I love the two-tone baffle. A recipe for disaster. Talk me down…

https://www.dagogo.com/pureaudioproject-trio15-coax10-open-baffle-speakers-review/

I find Doug Schroeder to be the Stephen King of audio reviewing- as I read him I feel he’s too verbose, and when I’m done, it all seemed just right.

I love the idea of a large wide band driver nestled between two even bigger drivers. I’m already on board the open baffle train with the Spatials; the bass works better for me in my problematic, asymmetrical room. The PAP’s are quite fetching looking, the Spatials just ok. I’d love an A-B of the two.

[Nick B]

Jim,

I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.

They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷‍♂️

Nick

[Jack]

I just read Doug's review and agree they look like a very interesting option.  I've owned M3TM's since 2016 but they get very little play these days.  I priced out a pair of the Coaxial 10 version in Gloss Black and with shipping came out a $8180 so not bad.

[steve]

Jim,

I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.

They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷‍♂️

Nick

Yes, maybe demo/loaners so you can keep the Fritz.

Will power Nick, will power.

cheers

steve

[Nick B]

Jim,

I agree with you. The two tone really looks good. I’ve had no experience with OB speakers, but they’d probably be a good fit for my listening room. But it would be tough to part with my Fritzies.

They do have a home audition program for either demo or new speakers. Choices, choices…. 🤷‍♂️

Nick

Yes, maybe demo/loaners so you can keep the Fritz.

Will power Nick, will power.

cheers

steve

Steve,
If I had the 💵💵, maybe a share of the money that Paul is going to win in the lotto someday,  I’d likely get these 
https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2021/10/28/the-fleetwood-deville-speaker-review/

[steve]

General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be. 

I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.

"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "

What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?

I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.

With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused.   

cheers

steve

[Nick B]

General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be. 

I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.

"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "

What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?

I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.

With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused.   

cheers

steve

Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.

Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.

It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick

[P.I.]

"Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.

There are too many issues.  The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings.  The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components.  The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.

The better term is faithful.  It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event. 

Take digital audio processes.  Imagine this:  you have a wagyu porterhouse.  Grind it up.  Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse.  Nope.  You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut.  Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.

Cartridges.  Do I even need to go there?

I'll always opt for faithful.  Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.

When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original.  In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals.  Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster.  Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud.  Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...

There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings.  The physics are just not there.  We do the best that we can.

Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for.  You are to be commended for your great products.  Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying.  Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.

Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.

FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.

[steve]

General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be. 

I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.

"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "

What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?

I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.

With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused.   

cheers

steve

Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.

Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.

It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick

The issue of a standard definition is exactly what I was addressing. By definition a live performance is neutral and correct, Not sterile sounding. That standard definition has been around for many many many decades. Unfortunately, many wanna bees have crept into the field, causing confusion, chaos. Another term is dis-information because they refuse to learn the craft.

When one enters a field, whether education, as a newbie etc, one always learns the definitions and other standards of that field in order to excel.

The consensus has always been there for those interested to learning the craft. (RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook) The problem is that many don't wish to follow the definitions. Check this string as an example.

How many designers are there now, hundreds,,,, thousands who will not follow those definitions. And how much product are these guys selling by marketing an altered version of standard definitions. It is those who refuse to follow the standard definitions, some for a buck. Unfortunately, the paradigms are low now, concerning sound quality.

I have not found a single "professional" reviewer who understands how to review a product. Not One. Simply inserting a component into his/her "professional" system and writing a review is not the way to judge and write a review.

cheers and all the best.

steve




 

[steve]

1. "Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.

2. There are too many issues.  The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings.  The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components.  The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.

3. The better term is faithful.  It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event. 

4. Take digital audio processes.  Imagine this:  you have a wagyu porterhouse.  Grind it up.  Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse.  Nope.  You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut.  Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.

5. Cartridges.  Do I even need to go there?

6. I'll always opt for faithful.  Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.

7. When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original.  In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals.  Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster.  Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud.  Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...

8. There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings.  The physics are just not there.  We do the best that we can.

9. Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for.  You are to be commended for your great products.  Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying.  Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.

10. Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.

11. FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.

I numbered P.I.'s response so as viewers may correlate my responses to his comments.

Point 11 is in essence your most important and revealing point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards previously mentioned. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral", a reference. So you heard "sterile" sounding components after 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". Was the live instrument also sounding sterile after 5-10 minutes. Evidently your label was not accurate.

1. Your definition is extremely vague. See point 2,3,4 etc.

2, 3, 4. There are some truly accurate recordings, meaning extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can.

4. It does take high rez for optimum sonics, but there are many many LPs that are pure junk as well. And no,
there is "no grind it up" "meat" analogy. Digital is sampling a portion of the audio signal waveform and reproducing it.
Now yes, the quality does vary; the more samples the higher the quality. There comes a point, however, where digital is simply amazing.

Many of the problems one encounters is the analog portion of the signal in the DAC itself.
The digital to analog chip includes analog as well as the separate 6db (gain of 2) analog chip or discrete transistors. Each has a power supply voltage with decoupling electrolytic capacitor. Those analog stages vary considerably in sonic quality. So once mp3, redbook, or hi rez enters the  picture, the analog stages must be addressed, which almost no one does properly. Vacuum tube stages have the same problems. 
 
5. I am not going to discuss, but some are very good.

6. Neutrality has already been discussed. Reread previous points.

7. The really good recordings use minimal components, or remain in digital mode for as long as possible.
(Most analog recording equipment is pure junk to begin with. Are recording "engineers" required to take any engineering courses at all? Just asking.)

8. You are going to claim physics now. True, a similar structure would give the spaciousness but otherwise,
a properly treated structure will provide good spatial qualities, accurate voices, instrument quality, dynamics etc. (Not 10 x 10 room though.) Believe it or not, almost all analog electronic components are just as problematic as the venue or speaker itself. The small deviation is over many octaves is just as important as the narrow peaks and narrow valleys. The poor quality parts are just as important.

9. A. An opinion is just that, but is Not the standard definition.
B. If he refers to a component as sterile, when in fact it is accurate and honest, he is
     1. dicing a product unfairly due to another component's weakness in his system
     2. He is unfairly inflating a component that is inferior in nature
     3. He is unfairly costing one company money while unfairly inflating another company's revenue
     4. Customers are unwisely wasting money and time due to an inaccurate review
     5. He should be replacing the poor component that is causing the "sterile" condition, not
          falsely labeling the accurate component "sterile". Its the wrong component. The individual
          is Not competent to be reviewing if he does not understand how to perform proper listening tests.

Nick stated he spent a lot of time to arrive at his present system. (I would guess money as well.) I wish
he did not have to go through the years searching.

10. Not that much of a problem, as per my decades of testing with others present over time. If need be,
clean one's ears if it bothers one.

Back to pt 11. Point 11 is in essence your most important point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral". So you heard "sterile" sounding components for 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". I don't think a live instrument sounds sterile after 5-10 minutes. If it does,
then I guess you do need to artificially alter it.

Please follow audio standards and definitions as it reduces confusion. This is my last post on the subject.

cheers and all the best.

steve





 

[Nick B]

General consumption. Don't mean to offend anyone, but I suppose the author will be. 

I read this statement, stopped reading, and started laughing.

"They are also not going for “neutral” or “correct”. Nope, what these Deville’s do is go for amazing musicality, body, soul and they have a way to make anything I play through it sound rather amazing. "

What he states is an oxymoron, that somehow natural instruments aren't musical, with body, and soul, that sounds live.
Listening live is neutral, correct, accurate, has soul, is live, by definition, since the music is not altered.
That is not good enough?

I guess I will have to change the descriptions of my components because that is exactly what my components do, musicality, body, soul, and lifelike, "where music comes alive tm". But that is because they are neutral and correct and accurate to the live music event, of course with excellent recordings.

With definitions being butchered, no wonder music lovers/audiophiles are confused.   

cheers

steve

Steve,
I understand your point of view. I had heard of Steve Huff previously, but just started reading his reviews recently. I do have a hunch that the Fleetwood is quite an excellent speaker based on the other speakers that he has had in his system and the many years he’s devoted to audio. I think part of the issue here is simply that we all have different personalities and that leads into how we speak and express ourselves. Then there is the issue of understanding what audiophile terms mean and that everyone uses those terms with the same intent. That’s a pretty tall order in my opinion and involves education and consensus. The simplest test I guess is simply to listen to the equipment that was reviewed and to judge if you like it as much as the reviewer. Oftentimes, that is not easily doable, though, and isn’t possible for me with expensive products.

Over the years, I have come to trust certain reviewers much more than others and the same goes here on AN with certain members. I have come to trust their opinions because I was able to audition the gear that they had recommended and our opinions had coincided.

It’s a hobby/passion for me and I’m appreciative of how good things sound now. It’s been quite a long journey to get to this point.
Nick

The issue of a standard definition is exactly what I was addressing. By definition a live performance is neutral and correct, Not sterile sounding. That standard definition has been around for many many many decades. Unfortunately, many wanna bees have crept into the field, causing confusion, chaos. Another term is dis-information because they refuse to learn the craft.

When one enters a field, whether education, as a newbie etc, one always learns the definitions and other standards of that field in order to excel.

The consensus has always been there for those interested to learning the craft. (RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook) The problem is that many don't wish to follow the definitions. Check this string as an example.

How many designers are there now, hundreds,,,, thousands who will not follow those definitions. And how much product are these guys selling by marketing an altered version of standard definitions. It is those who refuse to follow the standard definitions, some for a buck. Unfortunately, the paradigms are low now, concerning sound quality.

I have not found a single "professional" reviewer who understands how to review a product. Not One. Simply inserting a component into his/her "professional" system and writing a review is not the way to judge and write a review.

cheers and all the best.

steve

Ok, Steve. I respect you approaching this from a designer/manufacturer point of view. You entered the field and followed the standards and I applaud that. For the vast majority of others who are simply music lovers, salesmen etc. it’s either a way to engage in a wonderful hobby or a way to make a living or maybe both. That’s the reality of the situation. I think it’s the same for any other avocation that amateurs are involved in, be it tennis, golf, biking or whatever. I wish I had had the good fortune to have met a very learned audiophile a few decades ago who could have demonstrated and explained room acoustics, vibration control, equipment and speaker design basics, etc. but that didn’t happen and the average audiophile/music lover nowadays isn’t likely to fare that much better. There was no internet when I got into audio in the late 70s and 80s. That’s why so many of us go on forums and read reviews.  To learn the best we can. It’s still just a hobby we love, albeit an expensive one. I wish I’d spent less money over the years, but it’s the price of admission for this hobby.
Nick

[steve]

I am going to break my own rule here.

"Ok, Steve. I respect you approaching this from a designer/manufacturer point of view."

No, it is from a Scientific point of view. It is not an US vs THEM,
nor MANUFACTURER vs CONSUMER point of view etc. (I know there are some "objectivists" who
also claim MANUFACTURER vs CONSUMER .)

Here is the definition of the word "neutral" we all understand in common.

not engaged on either side specifically

not aligned with a political or ideological grouping a neutral nation

not decided or pronounced as to characteristics : indifferent

neither acid nor basic

not electrically charged

an impartial or unbiased country or person:

This is the music lover's point of view, what he understands "neutral" actually means, just like
the manufacturer/designer/engineer. There is no split view points. If the reviewer wants to be
honest, just state that these speakers make the music a little fuller than natural instruments sound.

Instead, the reviewer twists the definition into a negative when "neutral" is neither negative nor
positive. Perpetuate the "neutral" is sterile myth to hype a product. I don't see manipulating
definitions in other professional fields like Accounting, real science, but audio is another matter it seems.

Is it any wonder why I have heard more than once from young people; see the hyprocrisy and don't want
to be part of the hypocrisy. Neither do I.

The speakers may be comparatively good. That is all I have to say.

cheers

steve
 

[P.I.]

1. "Accuracy" in audio is a constantly moving target that will NEVER be hit dead center.

2. There are too many issues.  The beginning of the process usually involves a transducer, except for DI recordings.  The transducer and input stages of a recording desk or recorder is inherently non-linear and they ALWAYS introduce distortion components.  The end of the process is an inherently non-linear transducer(s). Add to this all of the intermediate processing and stages and the concept of neutrality is dead on arrival.

3. The better term is faithful.  It implies that the end user (listener) "believes" the product to be a reproduction of the original event. 

4. Take digital audio processes.  Imagine this:  you have a wagyu porterhouse.  Grind it up.  Now reassemble the grind into a wagyu porterhouse.  Nope.  You will have great ground beef, but it will never be the same as the original cut.  Both are delectable, but in totally different ways.

5. Cartridges.  Do I even need to go there?

6. I'll always opt for faithful.  Hopefully it will have a modicum of neutrality, whatever the hell that is.

7. When I was engineering a session, I always tried to make the individual performances sound "better" than the original.  In some instances that involved EQ that was in no way neutral to make the offender not step all over the other instruments or vocals.  Having too many instruments loading up a particular frequency spectrum is the absolute recipe for end product disaster.  Too many low frequency components like kick drum, concert drum, bass viols or guitars, synths, etc = mud.  Same goes for cluttering the mids or creating screechy, glaring highs is a no-no...

8. There is no way to recreate a live performance that is accurate or neutral in modern day recordings.  The physics are just not there.  We do the best that we can.

9. Steve, I get exactly what you are saying and striving for.  You are to be commended for your great products.  Your "neutral" might be another's "musical", that's all I'm saying.  Also, the reviewer may (does) have a different opinion or agenda.

10. Add to this ear canals, HRTF (head related transfer functions) and all of the other variables and we have the proverbial can-o-worms.

11. FWIW - many of the "neutral" systems I have listened to were sterile, lifeless amalgamations that sounded very good, for about 5-10 minutes.

I numbered P.I.'s response so as viewers may correlate my responses to his comments.

Point 11 is in essence your most important and revealing point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards previously mentioned. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral", a reference. So you heard "sterile" sounding components after 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". Was the live instrument also sounding sterile after 5-10 minutes. Evidently your label was not accurate.

1. Your definition is extremely vague. See point 2,3,4 etc.

2, 3, 4. There are some truly accurate recordings, meaning extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can.

4. It does take high rez for optimum sonics, but there are many many LPs that are pure junk as well. And no,
there is "no grind it up" "meat" analogy. Digital is sampling a portion of the audio signal waveform and reproducing it.
Now yes, the quality does vary; the more samples the higher the quality. There comes a point, however, where digital is simply amazing.

Many of the problems one encounters is the analog portion of the signal in the DAC itself.
The digital to analog chip includes analog as well as the separate 6db (gain of 2) analog chip or discrete transistors. Each has a power supply voltage with decoupling electrolytic capacitor. Those analog stages vary considerably in sonic quality. So once mp3, redbook, or hi rez enters the  picture, the analog stages must be addressed, which almost no one does properly. Vacuum tube stages have the same problems. 
 
5. I am not going to discuss, but some are very good.

6. Neutrality has already been discussed. Reread previous points.

7. The really good recordings use minimal components, or remain in digital mode for as long as possible.
(Most analog recording equipment is pure junk to begin with. Are recording "engineers" required to take any engineering courses at all? Just asking.)

8. You are going to claim physics now. True, a similar structure would give the spaciousness but otherwise,
a properly treated structure will provide good spatial qualities, accurate voices, instrument quality, dynamics etc. (Not 10 x 10 room though.) Believe it or not, almost all analog electronic components are just as problematic as the venue or speaker itself. The small deviation is over many octaves is just as important as the narrow peaks and narrow valleys. The poor quality parts are just as important.

9. A. An opinion is just that, but is Not the standard definition.
B. If he refers to a component as sterile, when in fact it is accurate and honest, he is
     1. dicing a product unfairly due to another component's weakness in his system
     2. He is unfairly inflating a component that is inferior in nature
     3. He is unfairly costing one company money while unfairly inflating another company's revenue
     4. Customers are unwisely wasting money and time due to an inaccurate review
     5. He should be replacing the poor component that is causing the "sterile" condition, not
          falsely labeling the accurate component "sterile". Its the wrong component. The individual
          is Not competent to be reviewing if he does not understand how to perform proper listening tests.

Nick stated he spent a lot of time to arrive at his present system. (I would guess money as well.) I wish
he did not have to go through the years searching.

10. Not that much of a problem, as per my decades of testing with others present over time. If need be,
clean one's ears if it bothers one.

Back to pt 11. Point 11 is in essence your most important point as it demonstrates a refusal to follow audio industry standards. By definition, a live instrument is "neutral". So you heard "sterile" sounding components for 5-10 minutes and labeled or accepted it "neutral". I don't think a live instrument sounds sterile after 5-10 minutes. If it does,
then I guess you do need to artificially alter it.

Please follow audio standards and definitions as it reduces confusion. This is my last post on the subject.

cheers and all the best.

steve

Well, well, well...

You missed my points in 1, 2, 3, 4.  I was discussing the inherent limitations of an imperfect chain, not human capabilities.

Your implication is I could not nor cannot work around these limitations to create "extremely natural and exciting/emotional, properly dimensional recordings that do not fatigue, and you are in the audience recordings. I do not mean to offend P.I. but
just because you cannot, well, others can."  You said you did not "mean to offend".  Curious.  You know absolutely nothing about me or my capabilities or recording product and yet you jump to that conclusion.  You, sir, are speaking out of your ass and displaying an innate air of superiority. 

Then you sign off with "cheers and all the best", like misconstruing almost everything I said about the PROCESS is bullshit.  Your pedantic lecture was greatly misplaced.

Quite frankly, I expected more from you.  We are done.

[Folsom]

I know someone who measured one of their speakers. It wasn't good...

[Folsom]

Also I didn't read the thread.