Like

Speaker Ohms

 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 4
Registered: Aug-06
I have an Yamaha HTR-5930 Av Receiver and I would like to connect the following speakers to it,my main concern is the rear speakers which have an Independence of 3 ohms, Input power 125 w max,the rest are 6 ohm Input 250 w max,would the rear ones cause problems for themselves or for the receiver,only going on what I have read in regards to lower ohms.
Thank you.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16247
Registered: May-04
.

My question would be, which came first? Did you buy a receiver that can't drive the speakers first? Or, did you buy speakers that can't be driven by your receiver first? Either way, this isn't good system matching.

Try the set up. The rear speakers generally have much lower actual power running to them that do the fronts and center. If the receiver gets hot or shuts down, you have a problem. Your largest problem is speakers are never just one impedance. What you see as "6 Ohms" could easily mean a speaker that dips much lower in impedance over certain frequency ranges. This combined with 3 Ohm rears could mean the Yamaha - not known for driving tough loads - won't be happy with your speakers.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1475
Registered: Oct-10
Where did you get the 3 ohm speakers? I only ask because the speakers that come with a Sony HTiB (home theater in a box) are the only speakers I have ever seen with a 3 ohm rating. If your rear speakers are leftovers from a failed HTiB, I'd replace them with decent 6 or 8 ohm rears.
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 5
Registered: Aug-06
Thanks Superjazzyjames,yes they are Panasonic from my daughters home theater system,I thought they might create a problem.Ty.
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 6
Registered: Aug-06
Thanks Jan_b_vigne,I am hoping to upgrade my receiver and give my old one to my daughter using what speakers she has from her old Panasonic DVD system,but I understand what you are saying( learning a little bit more here)If I may present another question in regards to my upgrade,I have Yamaha NS125F Ind 6 ohms,nominal output 40w ,Max 120 as front and rear speakers along with NSC 125 Nom 40w,max 120 for centre speaker and YST SW 030 powered 70w, 50Hz sub woofer.I am hoping to buy a refurbished Yamaha RXV 565B or a RXV 465B,mainly because I have upgraded my TV along with DVD Player.

Would either of these be suitable for my existing speakers.
IN regards to my daughters set up I can see that I will need to upgrade her speakers etc to give her a decent system.
Thank you.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1476
Registered: Oct-10
You're welcome Andrew. My other concern is that those rears are probably single driver speakers. All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter. Single driver speakers will only work well (sound right) when used with either other single driver speakers or speakers with cone tweeters. Either way, the highs are coming through a cone. If your fronts have hard dome, soft dome, horn or other type of tweeters, the rears will not be compatible with them.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1074
Registered: Dec-06
This post is a little rushed...

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/products/ht/ns125f.html

Yamaha recommends the 461 (see the bottom of the page I've linked). Generally speaking, using an amp with more power is less likely to result in clipping. I don't know if the 465 or 565 have more power, but judging by model numbers they probably do (along with newer features too I'm sure). They will probably work very well, assuming that all of these pieces are sold separately and none are part of a HTiaB. Sure doesn't look like they are to me, but I only glanced at this page very briefly and did not compare receivers. The model numbers are so close that I'm betting they are more similar than not.

James, the fronts and rears are the same (each has three drivers). I don't think this is a HTiaB, but it seems the speakers are sold together as a HT solution.
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 7
Registered: Aug-06
Thank you James,I mentioned to my daughter that she may have to purchase additional speakers for us to get her system so everything works with each other,by the sounds she is quite happy with what she has for the time without out laying any money as to yet.

In regard to Dan's post,the Yamaha speakers I purchased along with my previous Tv,they where all connected up in a showroom looked and sounded great at the time so purchased as a bundle.

The reason for upgrade is I would like the additional features and also be able to connect everything via HDMI,the PVR,DVD and TV,making the assumption that All HDMI cables go to the receiver then one HDMI to TV and everything is controlled through my receiver giving me the sound through all speakers irrespective if I have DVD or PVR playing,hope that makes sense.

Specs for RXV 565
Channels 7
RMS Output Power (1kHz) 90W x 7
Total Power (20Hz - 20kHz) 630W (1 kHz)
High Sound Quality Dolby TrueHD Yes
Dolby Digital EX / Dolby Pro Logic IIx Yes
DTS-HD Master Audio Yes
DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 Yes
DTS 96/24 / DTS Neo:6 Yes
D/A Conversion 192 kHz / 24 bit
Selectable Subwoofer Crossover Yes
High Picture Quality Time Base Corrector Yes
Analog Video to HDMI Upconversion Yes (with upscaling up to 1080p)
Advanced Connections HDMI (In/Out) (4 / 1)
Component Video (In/Out) (2 / 1)
A/V Inputs (S-Video) 4 (Composite)
Digital Inputs/Outputs [O: Optical, C: Coaxial] (O: 2, C: 2)
Front Mini Input for Portables Yes
Front A/V with Digital Input Yes (A/V Only)
Advanced Features Compressed Music Enhancer Yes
Bluetooth Compatibility Yes (With Optional YBA-10)
iPod Compatibility Yes (With Optional YDS-11)
HDMI Standby-through Yes
YPAO (w/Optimizer Microphone) Yes
On-Screen Display (OSD) Yes
Learning Remote Capability Preset
Surround Realism Surround Programs 17
Custom Features Assignable Power Amp Yes (Bi-amp)

Specs for RSV367
Amplifier Section Channel 5.1
Rated Output Power (1kHz, 1ch driven) 100W (8ohms, 0.09% THD)
Dynamic Power per Channel (8/6/4/2 ohms) 110/130/160/180W
Surround Sound Processing CINEMA DSP Yes
DSP Programs 17
Compressed Music Enhancer Yes
SILENT CINEMA / Virtual CINEMA DSP Yes
Dolby Pro Logic IIx (ProLogic II)
Audio Features Adaptive DRC (Dynamic Range Control) Yes
Audio Delay Yes (0-240 ms)
192kHz/24-bit DACs for all channels Yes (Burr-Brown)
Video Features HDMI 3D passthrough Yes
Deep Color/x.v.Color/24Hz Refresh Rate /Auto Lip-Sync Yes
Extensive Connection HDMI Input/Output 4 / 1
Dock Port 1 (for optional YDS-12 or YBA-10)
Front AV Input Mini Jack/Analog Audio/Composite
Digital Audio Input/Output: Optical 2 / 0
Digital Audio Input/Output: Coaxial 2 / 0
Analog Audio Input/Output 4 (front 1) / 1
Component Video Input/Output 2 / 1
Composite Video Input/Output 4 (front 1) / 1
Preout Subwoofer
Headphone Output 1
Tuner Section FM/AM Tuner Yes
User Interface SCENE SCENE (4 sets)
Remote Control Unit Yes (Preset)
Audio Technical Specifications Signal-to-Noise Ratio 98 dB or more (250 mV)
General Standby Power Consumption (IR only) ≤1.0W
Auto Power Down Yes

Specs for RXV 465
Channels 5
RMS Output Power (1kHz) 105W x 5
Total Power (20Hz - 20kHz) 525W (1kHz)
High Sound Quality Dolby TrueHD Yes
Dolby Digital EX / Dolby Pro Logic IIx Yes
DTS-HD Master Audio Yes
DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 Yes
DTS 96/24 / DTS Neo:6 Yes
D/A Conversion 192 kHz / 24 bit
Selectable Subwoofer Crossover Yes
Advanced Connections HDMI (In/Out) (4 / 1)
Pre-Out All Channels Yes (Surr. Back Only)
Component Video (In/Out) (2 / 1)
A/V Inputs (S-Video) 4 (Composite)
Digital Inputs/Outputs [O: Optical, C: Coaxial] (O: 2, C: 2)
Front A/V with Digital Input Yes (A/V Only)
Front Mini Input for Portables Yes
Advanced Features iPod Compatibility Yes (With Optional YDS-11)
Bluetooth Compatibility Yes (With Optional YBA-10)
Compressed Music Enhancer Yes
YPAO (w/Optimizer Microphone) Yes
Learning Remote Capability Preset
Surround Realism Surround Programs 17

Apologies for the specs being as they are I tried to paste the actual link but to no avail,the specs came from a Yamaha site which I think was in the U.S.A so I would think the same specs apply for me here in Australia,my ignorance showing again.



Guys thank you very much for your input to all of this,google has become my information highway for things like HTiab and clipping etc,that way I have some idea on what you all mean.
Hopefully the links will have the info in regards to if my Yamaha speakers will suffice,I will admit I really know very little and would have just purchased what I thought would be ok.

Since purchasing my FHD Tv and Blu-Ray DVD Player I am enjoying what I watch a whole lot more.
Thank you again.PS sorry for long post.
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 8
Registered: Aug-06
Update specs for my existing HTR 5930

Channels 5
RMS Output Power (20Hz - 20kHz) 80W x 5
RMS Output Power (1kHz) 110W x 5
Total Power (20Hz - 20kHz) 400W
Dolby Digital EX/ Dolby Pro Logic IIx 6.1 Compatible
DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 Pro Logic II
XM Satellite Radio Ready Yes
Component Video (In/Out) (3 / 1)
A/V Inputs (S-Video) 4
Digital Inputs/Outputs [O: Optical, C: Coaxial] (O: 2, C: 1)
D/A Conversion 192 kHz / 24 bit
Surround Programs 7
Night Listening Enhancer Yes
Speaker A, B or A + B (A or B Only)
Selectable Subwoofer Crossover Yes
Multi-Channel Decoder Inputs 6-Channel
Learning Remote Capability Preset
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1477
Registered: Oct-10
Dan, "...yes, they are Panasonic from my daughter's home theater system."

Maybe I'm senile, but it appears that Andrew's rear speakers are NOT part of the same set as the front speakers.
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 9
Registered: Aug-06
No James I sort of had two questions going at once and caused some confusion,I am now concentrating on what receiver would suit my Yamaha speakers sorry about all that.Hence all the specs above to see what receiver I could buy to suit my speakers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1478
Registered: Oct-10
That's ok Andrew, we can adjust
 

New member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 10
Registered: Aug-06
James would this spec suit my speakers trying to work it all out via site Dan gave me sorry for seeming a rush but I am going to ring this mob tomorrow about this receiver they have for sale or should I do more homework.
Thank you.
5-channel powerful surround sound(600 W = 120 W x 5 max for Europe, 525 W = 105 W x 5 RMS, 700 W = 140 W x 5 max)

Mate I tried to delete this message to no avail as I think I need to find more info. :-(
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1479
Registered: Oct-10
I would take as much time as you can Andrew. Research, listen, see what sounds good to you. Don't be afraid to check out high gear if it's in your budget. I gotta get working now. Monday, June 13 is just getting started here in the U.S.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 11
Registered: Aug-06
Thanks James have a good day.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16252
Registered: May-04
.

"If I may present another question in regards to my upgrade,I have Yamaha NS125F Ind 6 ohms,nominal output 40w ,Max 120 as front and rear speakers along with NSC 125 Nom 40w,max 120 for centre speaker and YST SW 030 powered 70w, 50Hz sub woofer.I am hoping to buy a refurbished Yamaha RXV 565B or a RXV 465B,mainly because I have upgraded my TV along with DVD Player."


Andrew, here's what's important in your post ...

"I have Yamaha NS125F ... 6 ohms,nominal output ... as front and rear speakers along with NSC 125 ... for centre speaker and YST SW 030 powered ... sub woofer.I am hoping to buy a refurbished Yamaha RXV 565B or a RXV 465B ... "



What's important is not the wattage - and certainly not the wattage as stated in the power handling of the speaker. In most HT receivers what will be more important is the impedance of the load and, to some extent, the sensitivity of the speaker. You have to realize that "nominal" impedance doesn't tell you much about the actual load shown the amplifier. A "6 Ohm nominal" speaker can still dip well beneath 3 Ohms which would be far too low for most HT receivers. Yamaha HT receivers are not well known for driving low impedance loads. I suppose you can assume Yamaha should be making speakers which are compatible with their own amplifiers, but IMO that would be stretching the imagination just a bit.

My suggestion would be to audition the system before buying. In any situation where the matching is questionable, listening to the system perform as advertised before buying anything is highly advisable. Buying anything without first hearing it and knowing it will satisfy your needs is highly questionable and opens you up to disappointment. Certainly, if this is a situation where you are absolutely unabale to audition before a purchase, I would suggest you move to a more well mated set of components. Lacking even that, you need to understand the return policies of any retailer - most especially on sale or refurbished merchandise.

You might find this post of value; http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/682815.html#POST1956655


Do not get wrapped up in specifications. They are mostly meaningless. While the impedance and the sensitivity of a speaker are important, the specs for these numbers can be manipulated to read many different ways depending on what the manufacturer prefers you to see. All other specs for a speaker and most specs for an amplifier all but equally meaningless.



"All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter. Single driver speakers will only work well (sound right) when used with either other single driver speakers or speakers with cone tweeters. Either way, the highs are coming through a cone. If your fronts have hard dome, soft dome, horn or other type of tweeters, the rears will not be compatible with them."


I would tell you this isn't really true. In advertisements, the ideal is to have matched speakers. In reality, this isn't as important as a manufacturer who wants to sell more of their own speakers would have you believe. The type of tweeter or any other driver in the cabinet is not important. What is important is that the speakers are generally similar in sound quality. This would be more important across the front three speakers. Still, I have a center speaker that is not from the same company as the two front speakers and none of those match the brand of my rear speakers. However, in general, they all have the same basic sound and that does fine for the vast majority of listeners. If you were a hyper-critical music only listener who had the ability to do a physical set up of all five speakers and a sub to exacting locations within the room, then I would be a slight bit more picky about matching speakers. For most of us, the sound of an explosion will still be recognizable as the sound of an explosion even if the speakers are slightly mismatched and one speaker sits on a bookshelf while another sits on the floor. Don't take this wrong, but, if you're listening through a Yamaha HT receiver, the sound of the speakers will not be that important. If you were listening through a $10,000 amplifier, I would give you a different answer.

What you're buying fom Yamaha in the "bundle" should sound acceptable together no matter the speaker configuration or the tweeter design or lack thereof. If you decide to buy a different set of speakers, just match the basic sound of the front speakers and you should be fine.




.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 12
Registered: Aug-06
Thank you very much Jan_b_vigne,all the information you guys have given me informed me more than I knew before.
I am going to step back do some research and not rush into what seems a bargain and focus on something which will do what I am wanting to do.
Within probability I will keep my same speakers,I spoke to a sales rep from one of the two Audio stores this morn and he seems clued up on receivers and suggested other brands to look at,he was willing to either sell me higher end gear or very entry level gear,but he was more interested in what I wanted and what he had that would suit my needs without the just selling me anything attitude.Thanks again for all your help,this a great site with very willing people to help out and advise.
I would dare say when I do go to purchase my receiver I will seek advice from here in the near future.Ty as well to James and Dan.
Regards Andrew.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 13
Registered: Aug-06
One more question after reading your post on speakers,my front and rear speakers are exactly the same,so they would be suitable.those being Yamaha NS125F,sorry really in dumb mode at present.

You might have to scroll up to Dans reply for the speaker site for the love of me I can not paste links



Sorry Jan_b_vigne I am all read out here,too much reading I think.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16255
Registered: May-04
.

As I said, Andrew, you would normally assume Yamaha would be building speakers which are compatible with Yamaha receivers. From real world experience, that isn't always the case. A sticking point here is the typical lack of information provided by the manufacturer. With all the BS specs they give for their speakers and amplifiers, they do not inform the potential buyer where the lowest impedance point is on their speakers systems. This isn't just a Yamaha problem, it is an industry problem.

A "nominal 6 Ohm" speaker can dip below 3 ohms in some frequency range. That would make it a somewhat to very difficult load for most amplifiers and certainly for the mass market HT receivers. Then again, it can stay above 5 Ohms for the entirity of its response. The information provided typically isn't sufficient to determine how difficult a load a speaker will be on any amplifier.


http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/643339.html



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1481
Registered: Oct-10
Actually Jan, I have heard what happens when people try to use speakers with different types of tweeters in their HT systems. It usually doesn't sound good. I'm not saying that it can't ever sound good, but it rarely ever works. Of course, such notions right or wrong, usually originate with manufacturers, but that doesn't make it necessarily false. In this case using the same type of tweeter in all 5 or 7 speakers is the op's best approach.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1482
Registered: Oct-10
...and yes, some of these systems were powered by Yamaha HT recievers.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Cartandpeg

Post Number: 14
Registered: Aug-06
Thank you all,had a look at a Yamaha RXV 667,rep tells me this would do what I want, it is an demo model going out @ AU$588.00 with full warranty etc,unfortunately we pay a bit more here Australia as that was marked down a fair bit,I have seen it for $800.00 + in other places.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16260
Registered: May-04
.

What's the difference in sound between a cone tweeter and a dome tweeter, james? Or a soft dome and a hard dome? Cannot a dome or any other type of tweeter be loaded into a horn? What does the horn loading do to the sound that would make it unacceptable in a system without other horn loaded tweeters? If the frequency response of a single driver system is, say, 50-17kHz and a dome tweeter system is claimed to have a response through a similar range and with equal amplitude in both systems, what's the difference between how those two systems will sound, james? Please explain this to me.

You may have "heard" what happens when people try to use speakers with different types of tweeters. But you'll have to explain what the technical differences are that you thought you were hearing and why a cone tweeter sounds unlike a dome tweeter or any other variation mentioned above. Also, please explain why this real matters in a HT system.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1483
Registered: Oct-10
Well Jan, I know you like the technical details and I'm all for that. However, all I can tell you about different tweeters is that they usually don't sound right together. In one system, a guy started off using soft domes in his 3 front speakers and single driver speakers in the rear. Ever see the first X-Files movie, "Fight the Future" Jan? In it, a building is blown up. This IMO is the best explosion I have seen or heard in a movie so far. On the aforementioned system, this explosion was harsh, grating on the ears. These were NOT cheap spkrs btw and the volume wasn't real high. He had three 2 way speakers with cone tweeters lying around (one was a center speaker). So, at a friend's suggestion, he subbed these in for the ones with domes. It sounded much better. Neither this guy nor myself had ever heard about tweeter mixing & matching. His friend explained to us that the type of tweeter dictated the character of the speaker. He said that mixing tweeter types successfully depends on room accoustics.

I'd imagine individual ears play a role too. You may very well have a 7.1 channel system with four different types of tweeters that sounds great to you. To anyone else, maybe it sounds great, maybe not.

This one example of about 7 such cases I've heard in which HT systems had mixed tweeters. One sounded fine, the other 6 didn't work out. Now, I have no intention of debating this endlessly with you Jan. If you mix tweeters successfully, GREAT! Enjoy! I have only heard it done once. Make what you will of it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1484
Registered: Oct-10
Also Jan, while I agree with you that speaker cos would tout notions about the importance of tweeter matching whether it's true or not, I have to question their wizdom here. For instance, my speakers have hard dome tweeters. If Yamaha tells me not to mix tweeters and they only make spkrs with soft domes, they just lost a sale. The only pair of Yamahas I ever owned, from back when Yamaha seemed a lot more interested in sq than they do now, had soft domes. If I still had them and a Yamaha rep told me "Don't mix tweeter types!" I might buy spkrs w/soft domes from someone else, right? So pushing this notion does not seem like the best marketing strategy to me. Do you agree?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16261
Registered: May-04
.

Of course, I like technical deatils and for very good reasons. First, as a high end audio salesperson I was expected to know the technical details of what I was selling and what I was selling against. Second, audio follows fairly predictable rules of both physics and perception. Beyond being required to know and comprehend these rules, I find them to be fascinating mostly because they represent the unknowns we still find in audio.

As I've said numerous times on this forum, audio is a series of trade offs. If I give you one thing, I will very likely be taking away two others. Rules of physics and trade offs are particularly evident in loudspeakers.

What you have as "evidence" of your observation, james, is anecdotal and uncontrolled. Further, once you have been told "this" is going to happen, you have established "expectation biases" which will lead you to incorrect assumptions and certainly faulty conclusions. In other words, your evidence is not based in fact but in what you care to believe based on less than controlled comparisons.

There are no hard and fast rules such as you would portray, james. And certainly, while you would like to use your "about 7 such cases" as a proof, I have to say I've heard more speakers over more years and with vastly different degrees of quality and technology than have you.


If we take just the idea that a cone speaker will not match well with a dome tweeter in a HT system as you suggest, let's take that in another direction. Would you say we could establish a rule that all four cylinder cars can only be front wheel drive since four cylinders will not mate well with rear wheel drive? Or, should we make a rule that says all eight cylinder motors are quicker to 60mph than are any four cylinder motors?

Would you say these rules are reasonable and truthful in all situations? These are the same sort of "absolutes" you wish to establish for tweeters.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1485
Registered: Oct-10
Perhaps, I should have made this more clear, but in most cases, I heard a problem, then became aware of the mixed tweeters. In first case, the guy was showing his friend and me a problem. He played the scene with the explosion and we heard what he was hearing. Now, at this point, the issue of tweeter mixing had never been brought to my attention. It was his friend who asked if he was mixing tweeters.

I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem. However, matching tweeters solved these issues in the 6 cases where compatibility issues existed. In the other case, tweeters were mixed w/o issue. So I certainly did not pin this down as a hard and fast rule. I rarely apply absolutes to audio.

Of course when you sell audio gear for a living, you will hear more speakers as well as all audio gear than most of us. Of course knowing tech details would be required. None of this surprises me.

As for the car example, I have driven 4, 6, & 8 cyl rwd as well as 4 & 6 fwd cars. I don't see any connection to mixing & matching tweeters at all. Neither do I buy the notion that 8 will always beat 6 and 6 will always beat 4. A friend let me take his '89 supercharged MR2 for a spin shortly after he passed 4000 miles. 1.5 liter 4 cyl, quickest car I ever drove!

Since you brought up cars, a person doesn't have to know how car works to drive one right? Neither does one have to know why the sky is blue to look up and see that it's blue. I don't know why mixing tweeters in the cases I have experienced doesn't sound good. I only know what I hear. Again, this is not a matter of a preconcieved notion on my part. Having been a salesman certainly gives you an advantage when it comes to knowing tech details. Details like that are ones that I can only obtain when life's ever so brief windows of opportunity are open.

Rather than continue to debate this, let's let Andrew decide for himself if he wants to mix tweeters or not. After all, it's his money that he'll be spending eh? Otherwise, to each his own.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2415
Registered: Oct-07
My S-2000 was a 4-banger, and at 2000 CC not a large one, either.
Car was way fast and pulled strong all the way to well past 100mph.
120hp / liter and a 9000 rpm redline is what got you there. NO turbo/super.
Drive it like you stole it......

I wouldn't worry about dome vs horn loaded vs cone.....as long as the house sound was preserved. I could imagine problems no matter the technology if you mixed clashing presentations.
I'd hope you'd be OK sticking with a 'family'....all Paradigm....or Klipsch or whatever.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1486
Registered: Oct-10
Even my Kia Spectra with its 2000 cc (2.0 liter) engine is quite quick.

Leo, I'd be more inclined to mix brands than tweeter types to be perfectly frank. No matter how you slice it, it all boils down to taste and perception. If mixed tweeters sound good to you, then enjoy. If not, match 'em.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1075
Registered: Dec-06
I see it the way leo sees it. If you mix different speakers then you are quite likely to introduce uneven sound reproduction from one speaker to the next. I see all drivers, not just tweeters, potentially causing a problem. Not only that, but any ports too, and really just the entire speaker as different crossovers and box sizes will all impact the end result. In staying with one brand the sound is likely to be more uniform as brands often stick to a specific house sound and design philosophy.

In your example James, if I got it right, you took the three fronts out and substituted in three new fronts. The tweeters on the first set of fronts did not match the tweeters on the rear, but the tweeters did match after the switch. Result = a substantial improvement in sound. The question is, how do you know it was the tweeters matching that caused the improvement? In doing the switch you have no doubt introduced many new variables. One of which might simply be better tweeters period on the three new speakers.

Personally I'd try to match all speakers, but I might take my chances with the rears being different. They simply do a lot less work than the fronts. But then again, when I eventually get to setting up a home theater, I'm very likely to run it all through an integrated amp and simply go 2.1 Gets me 90% of the way there with a lot less hassle.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1488
Registered: Oct-10
One would think so Dan, but I have heard mixing brands of speakers done without issue many times. A system that was in a store near me had 4 different brands in a 7 channel system. Seven soft dome tweeters and you'd think only one brand of speaker was used. Go figure!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16266
Registered: May-04
.

"I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."


Uh, ... james, that not what you had said in your previous posts.


"Actually Jan, I have heard what happens when people try to use speakers with different types of tweeters in their HT systems. It usually doesn't sound good. I'm not saying that it can't ever sound good, but it rarely ever works"

"My other concern is that those rears are probably single driver speakers. All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter. Single driver speakers will only work well (sound right) when used with either other single driver speakers or speakers with cone tweeters. Either way, the highs are coming through a cone. If your fronts have hard dome, soft dome, horn or other type of tweeters, the rears will not be compatible with them."


You also posted this, "So I certainly did not pin this down as a hard and fast rule. I rarely apply absolutes to audio."


But you had tried to apply your tweeter suggestion as a "hard and fast rule" and as an "absolute". I got the quotes from your own posts, james, now you want to back off and say you never said such things?





If you hadn't said mixing tweeter types "will not be compatible" and, "All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter", we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Because I wouldn't have posted, "The type of tweeter or any other driver in the cabinet is not important", if you hadn't suggest to Andrew that different tweeter types are incompatible in one system. Nor would we be having this discussion if you hadn't then come back to say you still thought mixing tweeter types wouldn't work in a multi-speaker system based upon a biased situation with incorrect information supplied. We just wouldn't be here, james.


Right? You said one thing, I said another, then you said you still believed the first thing you posted? You are now backtracking to say it "shouldn't" matter?


But, of course, you've heard it matter. And, there was no bias because you say you never knew what you were hearing.


OK, two things here about making comparisons in audio. As Dan points out, you did not change out the tweeters alone. You changed out entire speaker systems. Therefore, to say the tweeters alone made the change in sound is an impossibility. It is all but impossible to prove what you have suggested under any conditions, james, if for no other reason than just replacing tweeters in an existing speaker system wouldn't guarantee a good match to the other component parts of any individual speaker system. You cannot simply put one tweeter in the place of another tweeter and expect a satisfactory whole to emerge. You certainly cannot exchange one entire speaker system for another entirely different speaker system and then pin any audible changes in sound quality to strictly one driver's shape or material composition. So, first, you're thinking on your experiment is seriously flawed and your friend's advice, "His friend explained to us that the type of tweeter dictated the character of the speaker. He said that mixing tweeter types successfully depends on room accoustics", is also seriously flawed to the point of being factually incorrect on essentially all levels.


Second, the nature of a driver, be it a tweeter, a woofer or a midrange will be determined by its electrical and its mechanical parameters along with it's use in/above/outside of a speaker enclosure - not by its physical shape. There are literally hundreds of soft dome tweeters available from the various speaker manufacturers across the globe. There are likely to be dozens of soft dome tweeters which have been manufactured just by a large company such as VIFA over the last four decades. If all of those soft dome tweeters sounded identical, why would a company produce several dozen designs? Why would a speaker designer select a Morel dome tweeter over a SAES dome tweeter? Do you get what I'm saying, james? You cannot say all soft dome tweeters are compatible with all other soft dome tweeters based solely on their physical shape or their material make up. Nor can you say all soft dome tweeters are incompatible within a multi-speaker array with all hard dome tweeters. How many different materials can be used to make a hard dome tweeter? Do you not suspect each of those materials would have a distinct "sound"? A sound unrelated even to the physical shape of the driver? It is simply impossible to make such generalizations as you have suggested, james. No "should" about it, it is simply impossible. These are rules of physics and laws of acoustics which are fairly unbending.



"Rather than continue to debate this, let's let Andrew decide for himself if he wants to mix tweeters or not. After all, it's his money that he'll be spending eh? Otherwise, to each his own."


I agree that Andrew should make decisions based upon his own observations and budget. However, Andrew came to this forum for some advice and what you had originally provided as "advice" is simply not correct. Someone reading this thread at a later date will have incorrect information should they read your original posts. That's why I corrected your suggestions, james, because they are inaccurate.


"Again, this is not a matter of a preconcieved notion on my part. Having been a salesman certainly gives you an advantage when it comes to knowing tech details. Details like that are ones that I can only obtain when life's ever so brief windows of opportunity are open."


james, it's extremely difficult to have a serious debate with anyone who claims not to have said exactly what they have said. It's also very difficult to discuss an issue with anyone who ignores facts when they become uncomfortable. I will gladly concede you may have heard what you think you heard, as I've said previously on this forum I am not responsible for what anyone other than myself can and cannot hear. But your conclusions are based upon faulty assumptions and poorly designed experiments. By using faulty experiments and making biased and faulty assumptions, you have arrived at a point where you are giving faulty and incorrect information to Andrew and anyone else who might read this thread.




It is also incredibly difficult for anyone to learn anything new when they continue to slam shut an "ever so brief" window of opportunity where they might take advantage of what others are saying - of what facts are being presented. You prefer to be a member of this forum, james. I'm not asking you to blindly accept "my rules" as you've suggested to others. I'm merely asking you to learn a few things rather than backtrack whenever what you've posted is not correct. Learning is, I hope, what we are all here to do.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1489
Registered: Oct-10
It happens again huh Jan? You quote me verbatim and still have no idea what I am actually saying. You choose to ignore words like; usually, normally, etc and then accuse me of applying absolutes when I clearly never did.

After making false accusations, you spin and endless yarn arguing with me about things I never said or implied. When I reply to such things accordingly, you accuse me of being mentally unstable or some other ridiculosly pathetic non-sense. In so doing, you turn the thread hostile and make it about you and your personality. After another go round gets to be too much for you, you yell, "F*** OFF!" at me repeatedly usually after accusing me of not having control of my emotions. I don't think mixing tweeter types USUALLY works out very well. I am not going to start thinking it is a good idea just because you try to brow beat me into thinking it is. In fact, to put this in your own language, "I don't give a dirty dead rat's hind quarters" what you think of me, what I say or what I do. Is that clear enough for you Jan?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2419
Registered: Oct-07
Super,
Comparing a Kia Spectra and an S-2000 is......well......nutty.
The S-2000 was/is a hardcore sports car of hi capability in the right hands. Front engine / RWD with 6 speeds, 240hp@9000rpm it was like a motorcycle engine put in a car.
Driven to 6500rpm limit, a Civic would keep up. use that extra RPM and it was like lighting an afterburner.

Just my opin, but If ......BIG if, I were going the HT route and were serious about it, I would 100% stick to a single brand with a known house sound. In my current situation, that would be Maggies.
If I were giving advice about an HT setup, I'd start recommending a single brand, no matter WHICH. Mixing brands is kind of a crapshoot, IMO, and can result in tonal / timbre differences as sound migrate 'around the room'.......Some brands may be compatible with one another. But only the buyer should make such decissions after listening evaluations.
I can only think of a few extra assumptions, here, mostly about optimizing setup and the appropriateness of the system for the room.....like NO 7.1 systems in closets...that sort of thing.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16267
Registered: May-04
.

Andrew, should you return to this thread, you'll have to excuse james. He has for some months now been our "loose cannon" and a problem child. It's obvious I've not done any of the things james accuses me of doing here.

Sorry.

Ask whatever you like and there are several people here who will do their best to provide good, solid information.


james, don't ruin another thread. If you have facts regarding tweeter types to argue, I will debate those facts. No one here has any interest in any other BS.





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1490
Registered: Oct-10
YOU already ruined it Jan with YOUR BS! I have no problem with arguing facts or discussing differing opinions when it's done respectfully. Obviously, you wouldn't know about that. I have had many peaceful conversations in many threads so long as you don't speak in them. Even when you speak in a thread where I have, but don't speak to me, all is well. Things were even peacefull here with you & I speaking until your post #16266. Suddenly, here come the false accusations, the miss construing of what I say and of course the attempts at telling me that I didn't experience what I did or that I miss percieved it or whatever you think. Then, when I call you on it, you deny doing what you clearly did. If you would like me to believe that you are anything other than a childish bombastic bully with nothing better to do than pick fights, prove it! Either leave me alone completely or find a more respectful approach. Quite frankly, I don't believe you're capable of either.

I know Leo. I was not comparing the two cars, just pointing out that a Spectra is quite surprising for what it is. I know about the S-2000. It's highly under rated IMO.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16269
Registered: May-04
.

I've told you before, james, I will correct any misinformation you post. That's all I did in this thread.



Drop it, james.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1491
Registered: Oct-10
Also Leo, what you say makes sense about using same brand speakers. However, I have heard more issues with tweeter mixing than I have with brand mixing. That's just my experience. Ultimately, a buyer will choose what works for him/her. There is one case I agree with you strongly on. Klipsch and Mirage are sister companies yet, I'd never use these two brands together. For that matter, I'd never use these 2 brands with the same brand of amp. Mirage works very well with Denon, at least to my ears. With HK? HORRIBLE! Klipsch sound good with HK. With Denon, they are harsh and even brittle sounding. I can't imagine these two brands getting along in a HT system.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1492
Registered: Oct-10
Yeah right Jan!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1494
Registered: Oct-10
We are talking much more about opinions and perception than facts here Jan. If I don't feel that mixing tweeters in a HT system is a good idea, I won't do it and I will advise against it. If you feel that it's fine to do and express so, fine. We can then let the op decide. Just don't insult either myself or others for having differing opinions. I don't think mixing tweeters is a good idea. This will not be changed by your bombastic approach. Nor will I stop stating so. You can either learn to live with that or deal with the consequences of your actions Jan. The choice is yours, the ball is in your court. Just don't cry like a baby when you mouth off at me and get the smack you deserve.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2420
Registered: Oct-07
I'm really disappointed, Jan, I though I WAS the authorized loose cannon.

IF I wanted another sports car, I'd go for a 4 or 5 year old Miata. Fun? You Bet. No rocketship, it simply provides huge fun for the 3 season or California driver. God help the Miata driver who gets caught in a Blizzard!

Don't manufacturers tend to carry mids and tweeters thru the line?
Like a small 2-way stand mount having the same tweeter as a more ambitiious and larger 2 1/2 or 3-way floorstander? If so, that should cover much of what has been under discussion, shouldn't it?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16275
Registered: May-04
.

"The choice is yours, the ball is in your court."


This isn't a game, james. There should be no winners and there certainly should be no loosers. We were trying to provide good advice to a new forum member. I corrected faulty advice, that's all I did. From where I sit, every other person in this thread agrees that tweeters can be mixed within a multi-channel system. While you are entitled to your opinion, your opinions are not, by way of being your opinion, going to automatically be the correct advice. In this case, it was not correct - as you yourself admit when you say at a later time, "I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."

That's the correct advice. That is not the advice you had first provided to Andrew. You had drawn hard and fast rules regarding tweeters. Anyone reading this thread can see what you've said and how you have moved from one position to another, james. There was no mention of "usually, normally, etc" in your original post. Anyone reading this thread can see what you had originally posted and, if you like, I can copy and paste it one more time to show you exactly what you had posted. Why try to deny that is what you had posted? Why argue over this? I corrected your hard and fast rules and your inaccurate information. You now agree with what I had posted. What is there to argue about other than your constant dislike for me? Whom do you suppose is interested in that?




You are confusing issues, here. The issue we need to attend to is providing correct advice to someone asking for assistance. The issue we do not need to address once again is your dislike for me. I don't give a fuzzy dead rat's behind about what you do in your own system, james. I don't spend a moment's time concerning myself with how your system sounds or why it sounds that way. I have no use for more inaccurate advice when I've heard more than enough from numerous uneducated but highly opinionated people to last more than the rest of my lifetime. If you cannot provide factual evidence to support a position you take, then you join the long list of uneducated but highly opinionated people I tend to correct with facts. There is an opportunity for you to actually learn something in this thread, james. If not from me, then from others who do not agree with your original post. But you refuse to learn anything. So I don't concern myself with your inaccurate, fault filled experiments and your uneducated opinions. Until you make an issue of our being in the same thread together, I try my best not to think of you at all. If you would like to discuss tweeters and how they sound or operate, I said I would be happy to join in that discussion. That doesn't seem to be what you're interested in doing for the rest of this thread. Therefore, I'm not interested in what you are trying to stir up, james.

You made poor suggestions to Andrew. You seem to admit that as the thread as progressed though I have no idea where your next spinning leap backwards will take you. I corrected your original suggestions and then you insisted we start this all up again. Why not just take my post to Andrew as my "opinion" and respect my opinion half as much as you insist I respect your own? james, I'm not the one who started this up again.

I asked you to provide some factual proofs for your advice and you really can't give me anything other than more faulty information based upon poorly designed experiments. Possibly, you could take the advice provided by Dan and see that what you have done in your "experiments" in no way suggests the tweeters might have made a change. Possibly, you could take that window of opportunity to rationally discuss facts. You refuse even to do that. So, how do you propose to learn anything, james, if you constantly refuse to accept any other opinion or facts other than what you already have stuck in your head? How do you intend to learn anything when you constantly turn most threads into a rant about your dislike for me? If you are not here to learn anything and you refuse to take part in any rational discussions of opinions which differ from your own, I have to ask you once again, why are you here, james? You have the right to be here, no one is telling you to leave, but you also accept a certain obligation when you join a public forum to not be a constant disruption to the proceedings.





Eventually we arrived at, "I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."

That is the correct advice to be given the op here. Why not just leave it at that? Why start this all over again. No one - believe me NO ONE - wants to go through this again - other than you seem quite willing to do so.

Let it go, james. Learn to let these things go. It helps no one and only serves to turn off anyone looking at this forum for the first time. Make no rebuttal, james, just let this go. The correct advice is, "I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."

Stop there.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16276
Registered: May-04
.

"I'm really disappointed, Jan, I though I WAS the authorized loose cannon."


To paraphrase Obama, "You're loose enough, leo."

You have your moments but they are just that - moments - and they usually don't go on and on and on.


"Don't manufacturers tend to carry mids and tweeters thru the line?
Like a small 2-way stand mount having the same tweeter as a more ambitiious and larger 2 1/2 or 3-way floorstander? If so, that should cover much of what has been under discussion, shouldn't it?"



There are no hard and fast "yes" or "no" answers to that question. There are several decisions which would influence which drivers a designer might select for any particular speaker system. First, the dimensions of the front baffle will strongly influence the dispersion, refraction and frequency response of any driver and most specifically the high frequency driver(s). A dimensionally smaller front baffle would normally demand a different tweeter than what would be deemed appropriate for a larger - particularly a wider - baffle.

The designer would also consider the lower frequency driver when making a decision on which high frequency drivers would be the best match. If the low(er) frequency driver has changed, then there is a good chance this would also necessitate a change in the high frequency driver to accommodate the new electrical/mechanical parameters of the other driver(s) in the system.

Finally, there are simple cost considerations. A designer obviously cannot use the expensive tweeter found in their flagship model in their most budget oriented versions. In this case, a "house sound" approach is typically taken and the drivers might or might not be taken from a line up of similar sounding drivers which may or may not have similar operating specs sans the high end flavorings. The early Energy Veritas speaker is a good example of such "trickle down" technology. Keep in mind a very expensive driver paired with a mediocre amplifier or system will only serve to showcase the deficiencies in the gear in front of the speaker. Therefore, you'll often hear a reviewer mentioning how the sonic flaws of budget speakers are likely to be better suited to the gear they are likely to be mated with.

I can think of a few lines where a handful of models all had distinct driver arrays (the original Boston Acoustics line as they broke away from Advent) in each speaker while maintaining a very clear house sound. That's an expensive way to design speakers today. There are several companies which will use similar if not identical drivers in different enclosure types - the original Klipsch line excepting the Heresy - to achieve a house sound and an interesting story.

Then there are the designers who use identical drivers but arrive at a different sound for almost every model in their line. How they do that, I don't know.

Today it's quite common to see identical drivers in nothing more than smaller and larger cabinets in a move from standmounted speaker to floorstanding speaker. (For years KEF had similar drivers in numerous models which really only changed the enclosure and perhaps the crossover topolgy. I could easily demostrate the quite striking similarities through the top nine octaves between a standmounted Kef 101A and their flagship 105.) Buying the lower priced speaker system will gain you the same sound or possibly better sound as the larger speakers when the smaller is paired with a subwoofer.

I suspect those who are more familiar with current speaker lines can give examples of each type of designs I've suggested.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2422
Registered: Oct-07
Great answer! 10pts......

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
EMMERSON.

OR

Brevity is the soul of wit.
POLONIUS: Hamlet, Act2/Scene2
(taken out of context)


BACK to speakers::
That's one reason I like my panels. You could, if you had a big room, easily mix 3.7s with 1.7s in back or nearly any combination of Maggie offerings. The compatability of Maggie w/Maggie is tops.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1495
Registered: Oct-10
Leo, if you want to be the "loose cannon", it's all yours! Enjoy!

Jan, your ability to miss what I say while quoting me is quite amazing. It really is. If you actually read my posts, you would see that what I'm saying is that mixing tweeters does not SEEM like it would be an issue. However, I find that it usually is. Can you grasp this concept Jan? There is a difference between what SHOULD be and what IS. I find that mixing tweeters USUALLY doesn't work out. Therefore, I don't recommend mixing tweeters and I will continue to advise against it with complete disregard for how you feel about that. There is no need to re-post what I post within the same thread Jan. To do so is stupid and a waste of time.

It doesn't take much to get you all lathered up does it Jan? A few simple truths about you that you can't deal with and you explode! I hope you are watching your cholesteral count Jan, LDLs in particular or you'll be in big trouble with that temper of yours! Ever consider anger management? I find your posts very entertaining as I ROTFLMAO at them, but I'd rather you take better care of your self. I can always watch a funny movie if I want laughs.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1332
Registered: Jul-07
"Jan, your ability to miss what I say while quoting me is quite amazing."

That's the most hilarious sentence that I've seen posted in a long while James. Out-and-out belly laugh. Thanks man. I needed that.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1498
Registered: Oct-10
Laugh all you want Chris, but that IS what he does. Just read what Jan quotes from my posts and his responses there to. It's clear that he has no idea whatsoever what I am saying. If you someone to laugh at Chris, you need not look any further than your hero Jan. I hope for your sake that you can at least tell the HUGE difference between what I say and what Jan accuses me of saying.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1333
Registered: Jul-07
"I hope for your sake that you can at least tell the HUGE difference between what I say and what Jan accuses me of saying."

It's impossible to tell the difference between what you said, and what you said. Just sayin'. If you want to say things, but have a different meaning than what the words actually mean, you'll need to give me a James-to-English dictionary. Or better yet, just say what you mean. It'd be easier.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1499
Registered: Oct-10
I do say what I mean Chris. Jan misses it and I see that you do too. To be perfectly honest Chris, your arguements make even less sense than Jan's. I didn't think that possible, but you mangaged it somehow. I understand that Jan is your hero, your fearless leader, but when you take his side in a case like this, where he has accused me of saying something so very different from what I did say, that doesn't say very much for you. Especially, when it's such an abundanly obvious blunder on his part.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1500
Registered: Oct-10
This how the conversation goes Chris:

Me: Mixing tweeters is USUALLY not a good idea.

Jan: What do mean mixing tweeters is NEVER a good idea James?

Me: I didn't say never Jan, I said "It's USUALLY not a good idea."

Jan: Oh yes you did James! Oh yes you did! You made it into a hard and fast rule, you said it should absolutely never be done!

Me: Really Jan? I even sited one case where mixing tweeters DID work out. I certainly did not apply the word "never" or other absolutes here.

Jan: Oh yes you did James!

This all comes after he actually quotes me verbatim saying, "Mixing tweeters is USUALLY not a good idea." See that Jan and Chris? The word USUALLY in all caps and Jan missed it.

Is this really so hard to comprehend? From the moment I joined this forum, Jan has been following me around threads, quoting me, responding in a manner that makes it clear that he has no idea what I am saying and getting upset when I point this out.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1502
Registered: Oct-10
Happy father's day to my fellow dads! I'd wish Jan a happy father's day as "father of lies", but that title us already taken by someone just slightly more evil than Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1503
Registered: Oct-10
Also Chris, I must say, I like the consistancy of your tactic: coming in after the fact. That's always good for rekindling the debate. I like you Chris, but your hopeless devotion to the bombastic slug is heartbreaking.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1334
Registered: Jul-07
"All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter. Single driver speakers will only work well (sound right) when used with either other single driver speakers or speakers with cone tweeters."

That's your original post James. No qualifiers at all. No USUALLY's or SOMETIME's mentioned. As a matter of a fact you used an ONLY which means....well, only. You didn't start using qualifiers until Jan corrected you. Look James, I'm not trying to rekindle any debate. You said what you said. There is nothing to debate about. All you're doing now is throwing around a lot of garbage unrelated to what you said.

You said what you said. Correct yourself, stick to your story....whatever. But either way, it's got nothing to do with anyone else other than YOU. Stop blaming others. Normally I'd completely ignore you as I usually do. Your past antics have soured me on having anything to do with you. I think I'll go back to that approach now, since you obviously haven't learned anything.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16281
Registered: May-04
.

james, there has never been anyone like you on this forum.

Rekindle a debate? You made four posts to Chris's one. All of them are an insult to at least one person and, more often than anyone else who has graced this forum with their overwhelming desire to be disruptive, you often insult several people for no good reason other than your own personal satisfaction. Since you are not discussing audio in these posts and this has now become a repeated pattern on your part, I can only conclude that must be your intent and there can be no other.

Rekindle a "debate"? You are the person who has insisted upon making an issue of my opinion while demanding I respect your own.

That's serious kindling you've piled up in just this one thread if you ask me. To make matetrs worse, you then decided to set a match to it and pour on some gasoline.




I missed the point of the words posted?

You just created an entire conversation that never existed! And you applied your own spin to what you would prefer to believe as if what has actually occured had never happened and cannot be pulled from the recent past as proof of your spinning this into yet another destroyed thread. You return to make comments even after you've responded to comments. Why? What "point" is there in that?



And, just so you understand me, james, here is the portion of what has been posted that actually matters; "The correct advice is, 'I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem'.

Stop there."




The point being made - which you obviously miss - is that is the correct advice, there is no other advice which is correct in this thread. And all that you've posted since that point has been wasted and destructive to the forum because everything you've posted since that time has solely been about your dislike for me and not about audio at all.

What part of that correct information do you have a problem with? You said it and I quoted you. Everyone can read what you've posted before and since but the point to be made is that is the only correct information you seem to have posted. That should have been the end of the conversation if not for the fact you are ever ready to unearth an insult where none exists. Your experience with "about 7 such cases" has nothing to prove since the comparisons were not properly performed and the information you based your hard and fast rules upon is not factually correct. If you've heard, as you later post, multiple speaker lines in a single system that sounded OK to your ears, is that not exactly what I had posted to Andrew? Did you bother to read my statements for facts rather than concocted insults? It seems as though you either didn't or you conveniently forgot what I had actually posted. I suggested to Andrew that he match the character of the speakers sound but it is not neccessary to match drivers? You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding that fact also. Yet, everyone else in this thread would seem to be in agreement with my suggestion and not your's. I see no one agreeing with your position on matching tweeters and drivers. Why not attack them also if you feel attacking is your only defense?





The comparisons which you have made where not of tweeters alone. Therefore, you can come to no conculsions about tweeters based upon the information you say was provided by a friend nor by the comparisons you claim to have made. Now, what part of that do you need explained further? Several of us have tried to explain that to you only to be rebuked by you. All of us here will help you understand what problems exist with your comparisons and, therefore, what are the falsehoods in your conclusions. But we would have to be discussing audio in order to do that. You haven't been focussed on audio in quite some time, james, and you spurn facts as unnecessary when they are uncomfortable to your way of thinking.

We would prefer you learn what you've done wrong so we might not have these same issues come up again. And so that we don't have to go through all of this other crap again. Because that is what it is, crap. That too is a fact. No one looking at this thread would think this is where I would like to come for advice. And it is due to your outbursts, james. No one here has insulted you. Most importantly, I never insulted you as you have claimed. Yet you have gone off just like a loose cannon and a problem child with your constant posts about how evil you feel I am. No one here has told you to "F*ck Off" as you have posted. No one here has done anything other than try to get you to discuss audio and nothing more on an audio forum.




James, you did make hard and fast rules which you set down in your first post regarding tweeters and the incompatibility of various driver types. It is there is print. Those rules have no basis in fact. I don't care, and I suspect no one else here cares, what you prefer to believe, you are free to believe anything you wish. But your hard and fast rules are inaccurate and would appear to have come from faulty information you were provided and comparisons you have made which are seriously flawed. When you suggested these are problems Andrew will encounter - not "usually" and not "normally" but will encounter, you provided inaccurate information to Andrew and to any other reader of this thread. That I somehow insulted you when I supplied my own opinion and the facts to support my opinion is a pure fabrication on your part, james. All that has transpired from that point forward has largely been a fabrication of your own imagination and your spinning of your own prevarications.






The correct information is, "I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."



I know exactly what you have gone on about since and before you posted that. None of that matters as that is the correct information to provide Andrew.

Do you understand that, james? I know exactly what you have said and I only wish you were so dilligent and courteous with what I have posted.

If you seriously wish to debate this matter with anyone here, then you need to cease your rants against me personally and make an attempt to turn this into a productive thread for both Andrew and yourself. Therefore, we need to discuss tweeters. I understand that you don't care for facts but facts are what we need to provide members such as Andrew who comes here looking for accurate and informative advice. To that end and no other, please respond rationally to the following questions I had posed in an earlier post; What's the difference in sound between a cone tweeter and a dome tweeter, james? Or a soft dome and a hard dome? Cannot a dome or any other type of tweeter be loaded into a horn? What does the horn loading do to the sound that would make it unacceptable in a system without other horn loaded tweeters? If the frequency response of a single driver system is, say, 50-17kHz and a dome tweeter system is claimed to have a response through a similar range and with equal amplitude in both systems, what's the difference between how those two systems will sound, james? Please explain this to me.

You may have "heard" what happens when people try to use speakers with different types of tweeters. But you'll have to explain what the technical differences are that you thought you were hearing and why a cone tweeter sounds unlike a dome tweeter or any other variation mentioned above. Also, please explain why this real matters in a HT system.





No more ranting about Jan is evil. No more about how much you dislike me or how I have "followers" on this forum. No one is making any attempt to change your mind about anything you've seen, heard or done other than to explain why you have not performed good comparisons and that you have received poor information. Either you accept facts which exist or you continue on without essential knowledge which would make this a better forum. Simply, we're trying to provide some information. Once again we have reached a point where you have the opportunity to become a productive member of the forum or you have a chance to prove how unproductive you prefer to remain. It is unproductive to continue to rant on about me when I have done absolutely nothing to you nor against you. As you say, james, the ball is not in your court. Do you prefer to learn as most everyone else here came to do? Or, do you prefer to waste everyone's time as you have for the last twenty or so posts?

I've not insulted you in any way in this thread or more specifically this post. You do understand that, right, james? I have posted more facts about this thread which can be found in this thread. Can you respond in a manner which turns this back into a productive thread? Or, will this just be another thread you have destroyed for your own purposes? C'mon, james, let's see you actually discuss audio in this thread and not just your ability to find insults where they do not exist. Answer those few questions and we can discuss audio on an audio forum. Otherwise, please don't bother to waste more of our time with more rants about me. I realize that is a frivolus request to make of you but I do hope for the best and not the typical.

What's your answer, james?




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16282
Registered: May-04
.

" From the moment I joined this forum, Jan has been following me around threads ... "



Following you around?!!!


I have to toss my sycophantic "followers" a meaty bone here, james, and agree that is one of the most laugh out loud, hysterically inaccurate things I've ever seen posted on a public forum.



But, in one sense, I have to agree with you, james. No one should be following you anywhere. Enough with the conversing with james IMO!!!


There! If, as you say, everyone on this forum follows me as a puppy dog would it's owner amd bends to my slightest whims and commands, there will be no more conversation between james and anyone else on this forum from now to the end of eternity!!!


Happy?




.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1510
Registered: Oct-10
Bottom line Jan, I don't think mixing tweeter types is USUALLY, GENERALLY, or what ever non-absolute word you want, a good idea. I will continue to post this advice regardless of how you feel about that. I have found that mixing brands of speakers with like tweeters USUALLY works all together better.

The first post I made in this forum was ATTACKED by you Jan. You did that Jan. It was not helpful or what could be called "constructive critism" by ANY stretch of the imagination. The vast majority of your responses to my subsequent posts have been in the same vein, blatantly disrespectful and insulting. Even with that, my dislike is not so much for you personally as it is for your approach to arguing points with me. Again, the debate here is more about opinions and perceptions than facts. If you mix tweeter types in your HT system and it sounds good to you, enjoy. However, doing so USUALLY doesn't sound good to me. That's a reflection of the difference between your ears and mine, your room accoustics and the acoustics of MOST rooms where I have heard it done and/or some other factors. The FACT is, as you yourself have pointed out numerous times, that everyone's ears/brain combo are different. So, arguing about opinions and perceptions is useless. If person A's favorite color is red and person B's is blue, it doesn't make sense for the 2 of them to argue with each insisting his/her fav is the best, now does it? Yet, you seem quite insistant that I should think mixing tweeters is a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea and I will continue to state so and that's all there is to it.

You also told me that because I dissagreed with you, that you can't help me. I made it clear right away that I don't want any of your help, at least not the kind you've tried to force on me so far. Yet, you keep trying. Can't you take a hint Jan? Either leave me alone or find a constructive, civil manner to argue your points. Otherwise, conversations between us will go on just as they have from the get go for all eternity.

You're right to say that this isn't a game. Everyone should win and no one should lose, but in stating this point, you missed mine. I said the ball is in your court as a way of telling you that how we proceed depends on you. If you don't speak to me at all, that's fine. If you speak to me civilly, that's fine. However, if you continue your agressive approach, expect the same in return. You will reap what you sew Jan.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16284
Registered: May-04
.

OK, no discussion of actual facts regarding audio. I thought not.




"The first post I made in this forum was ATTACKED by you Jan. You did that Jan."


It was not, james, you need to grow up. If you disagree with that statement or find it to be an "attack", then find anyone from within this thread who agrees with you. Please try.



"It was not helpful or what could be called "constructive critism" by ANY stretch of the imagination"


It wasn't intended to be a criticism of anything. It was a statement of my opinion and of the facts which you prefer not to face. I've asked you on several occasions now to discuss audio and you resort in each instance to insulting me and making claims against me which are completely fabrications of your damaged pysche.



"The vast majority of your responses to my subsequent posts have been in the same vein, blatantly disrespectful and insulting."


Only in what you imagine to exist. You find insults which are not there and do not exist. You seek out demons to haunt your soul and you unleash attacks which should not have come to the surface. You are seriously damaged.



"Again, the debate here is more about opinions and perceptions than facts."


There is no "debate", james, because you refuse to participate in any discussion of facts. I have argued no "points" with you, if for no other reason than you have presented no "points" of value which refer to audio. Your "points" have consisted of the same old "Jan is evil" and "Jan is attacking me" BS that you've played for the last - what is it now? year? I stated my opinion with regards to Andrew's requirements and requests. They are not in agreement with your opinion because you have no facts with which to base your opinion. On the other hand, I do have facts and I am correct in this matter in regards to providing advice to Andrew. You, though, have faulty information and even more faulty conclusions. It was you who made an issue of this, james. Both of us expressed an opinion but you chose to make an issue of my opinions. Just as you have done on numerous other occasions where you are factually out of touch. That goes all the way back to your very first post where I corrected your misinformation and included references to three outside sources who were in agreement with my statement and in direct opposition to your's. And that is what you have carried forward like a small child who harbors imagined slights for the rest of their life against someone with whom they cannot compete.



"So, arguing about opinions and perceptions is useless."


That's correct but discussing facts which would be relevant to the various opinions and perceptions is far from useless. It is what adults actually engage in with civility to resolve issues. Adults do not resort to the sort of BS you find so gratifying. What is useless is for anyone - such as you - who feels their opinion must be honored, and any contradictions to their wrong headed opinions must be seen as an attack, to then resort to any course other than a civil and rational discussion of facts which could prove one person's opinions and perception to be faulty. If you would rationally discuss tweeters and comparisons, you would realize your standings have no basis in reality. We would also be returning to the purpose of this audio forum. However, it is you who remains unwilling to discuss facts of audio while resorting to nothing more than added insults towards anyone whom you feel wrongs you in some manner only you can perceive.

For my part, I don't care. I don't care what you think about anything audio nor about me, james. I do find it disgusting that you should vent your frustrations with my knowledge on others such as Dan and Chris. I don't care that you do not have the gumption to discuss facts but must resort to the same old BS you've brought to this forum since day one of your existence here. Do you seriously think I care about what you see that no one else can identify? I don't, other than you demand that it persist. This has long ago become far too tiresome for all but you and has excedingly lost all of its Theatre of the Absurd, existentialist comedic value.



"Yet, you seem quite insistant that I should think mixing tweeters is a good idea."


Are you completely unaware of my total lack of concern for what you do and how your system sounds? I've posted that sentiment several times now. My desire is for accurate information to be presented to anyone asking questions on this forum. You have suggested an opinion which has no factual basis and is, in fact, inaccurate. You need to stop seeing anything I say as an attack on you when it is merely a presentation of my opinion and those facts which support my opinion. In short, you need to do some serious reflection and growing up. You've behaved like a child since the first post you made on this forum and you have only become more disengaged from reality over the last few months. This is not an attack on you, james, this is fact. You are loosing whatever grip on reality you at one time might have possessed.



"You also told me that because I dissagreed with you, that you can't help me."


I don't know what Bizzarro-land world of non-reality you are living in at the present time but that is in direct contradiction to my posts in this thread. I've been trying to come to a position where this forum doesn't have to suffer from you seeing insults and attacks which do not occur and have never existed. I have told you on several occasions, james, that you need to learn a few things about audio. This - this thread - is where you remain and where you prefer to wallow in your hatred of me. Don't blame others for what you do to yourself. I've done nothing to force you into anything. How could I force anyone to do anything on a public forum such as this? Believe me on this one, james, if I truly possessed that capacity, you would be long gone from this forum.

I have encouraged you on multiple occasions to learn from what is being offered. You could have learned from Dan in this thread. You could have learned from Chris. It's not just me you find so ... "attack-ful". You agree with no one here and no one here agrees with you. Look at this thread, we are all of one opinion except for you. But you refuse to even discuss what we are saying. With your attitude of resistance to facts and real knowledge, how can anyone here help you?



"Either leave me alone or find a constructive, civil manner to argue your points. Otherwise, conversations between us will go on just as they have from the get go for all eternity."

"If you don't speak to me at all, that's fine. If you speak to me civilly, that's fine. However, if you continue your agressive approach, expect the same in return. You will reap what you sew Jan."




How many times must we go through this? You do not control this forum, james, despite your attempts to see your name plastered on every thread on this forum. It is a public forum and I am not following you around this forum any more than I am being aggressive towards you. I was not addressing you when I gave my opinion to Andrew. You have made this what it has become on this thread just as you have in so many other threads you've destroyed. Once again, james, grow up.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16285
Registered: May-04
.

I'll post this here, james, just so you see it and do not loose focus on what needs to be said.

You are delusional and deranged. You see things which do not exist and which no one other than you can identify. You are a liar. Of that there is ample proof. I've seen your post on the Stereophile forums, james. You spin your lies and fabrications as if anyone were actually going to take your word for anything - even on that forum it's obvious you lie more than the rest while claiming not to belong to any other forums. You lie when you accuse me of things which I have not done and which anyone who had just registered on the fourm wouldn't know anything about. You lie without even giving it a thought as to who your lies might damage.

They damage you, james, and no one else. They are an indication of the damage which has been done to you and which needs a peaceful resolution.

You are a paranoid indivudal who sees enemies which do not exist. You are a sociopath who attacks when there is no one to fight.


You are seriously damaged and require medical asistance. I suspect you keep what you do on this forum a secret from anyone around you.

You need to stop, james, and get help for your problems. They are your own and not the result of anyone who has come in contact with you. What you are doing is unhealthy and you need to find a resolution to your demons.


This thread is over as far as I'm concerned. Once again you have personally destroyed this forum, james. And there's not even enough of a person behind all this for anyone to even pity. Get help, james. You are in desparate need of intervention.





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1512
Registered: Oct-10
What a surprise! Another yarn of meaningless jibberish from Jan!

You have been attacking and insulting me all along Jan and you know that you have. If you knew the first thing about being an adult and what adults do, you'd fess up to it and you'd stop. That would be your starting point.

I don't try to control this forum Jan, you do. You state what everyone else thinks and believes and their perceptions of me is if you can read their minds. Need I remind you Jan, that is YOU that has been kicked out of other forums, NOT ME! When I speak in other forums, we have pleasant comversations. I don't have these arguements with people there. Many forums have archives where you attack and insult people. The moderators of said forums agree that YOU, JAN B. VIGNE are childish, arrogant, foul mouthed, bombastic and have a history of turning threads hostile. The other members of those forums agree. Most people here may like you, but this is the only forum I can find that hasn't banned you yet. Have you forgotten what the "www" in website addresses stands for Jan? World Wide Web! In other words, you have made enemies throughout the globe Jan. Proud of yourself? I'll bet you are!

Again, I don't hate you Jan. I simply dislike your approach to discussing audio. It's rude, bombastic and childish. If you want to talk about people who hate you, people on other forums hate you. Trust me on that.

So you want to talk about maturity Jan? Let's revisit your conversation with Daisybee back in March. He asked for advice, you gave him some. Good advice, I might add. Everything seemed peaceful. Then, for no apparent reason, he turned on you. I don't know what his issue was, but he accused you of essentially giving him no advice at all. So he felt that your advice was no good. I don't know why. You then made a long post arguing your points and insulting him in a post he most likely never read. If you had even one shred of maturity, you would have said something like, "Okay, well if you don't think I can help you, you're on your own. Good luck with your project!"

This way, if Daisybee did read your post, he might, depending on his maturity, have apologized and sought more help. The way you responded, if he read it, probably convinced him that he was right about you and he most likely sought help elsewhere. Why post all that crap you put in there? It certainly didn't do you, him or anyone else a bit of good.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1513
Registered: Oct-10
I am not a member of stereophile Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1514
Registered: Oct-10
"This thread is over as far as I am concerned."

The child turns and runs when he can no longer handle what he started. Of course! That's Jan for ya!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16288
Registered: May-04
.

" Many forums have archives where you attack and insult people. The moderators of said forums agree that YOU, JAN B. VIGNE are childish, arrogant, foul mouthed, bombastic and have a history of turning threads hostile. The other members of those forums agree"



"I am not a member of stereophile Jan."




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1515
Registered: Oct-10
That's right Jan, I belong to other forums, stereophile is NOT one of them. I have read posts in sp, but never joined. No one in stereophile is hostile though, now that they kicked you out. It's too dead for my taste.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16291
Registered: May-04
.

Submitted By: 1crazed Cat
Location: San Antonio, TX
Joined: Apr 28 2011
This is sad, but not surprising
Posted: April 28, 2011 - 6:25pm
I am not a member of any other forum, however, I do visit some from time to time. I have seen that Jan Vigne is very knowledgeable. He is also insecure and prone to bullying anyone who disagrees with him, knows something he doesn't or posts a fact before he does. This last almost always followed by him arguing with whoever posts the fact, then he turns around and posts the same fact in another thread.
; http://forum.stereophile.com/content/jan-vigne-banned



Well, let's take a look at the evidence trail, james. The above post has been lifted intact from the Stereophile forums announcement that I was banned. That thread was originated in mid-November, 2010. The quoted comment was posted on April 28 of the next year - about the time you began showing back up on this forum. For some very odd reason the post was made on the exact day 1 crazed cat registered with Stereophile, a fact shown in the member's information which accompanies the post. So, depsite the fact 1 crazed cat had never shown any interest in the forums while I was a member and that I had never had any contact with 1 crazed cat on the Stereophile forums, he seems to know all about me and what a horrible person I was in his estimation.

He knew that I am, in his words, "bullying" and "insecure". He states I would argue with other members if they know something or post a fact before I did. Quite interestingly, 1 crazed cat also says I would then take that information and use it as my own fact in another post. All of which is a lie. Anyone reading this forum or the Stereophile forums would realize I did not do such things. I would ask anyone here to find a fact I have lifted from someone else's post and later claimed to be my own. I would be quite intersted in which facts 1 crazed cat can point to where I did that on the Stereophile forums - forums which by his own admission indicated I am "very knowledegable". If I am very knowledgeable, why would I have to lift other members' ideas and claim then as my own? Does not this seem a contradiction in the poster's claims about not really knowing me? I suspect someone who had an intense dislike for me - someone like ... you, james - might very well accuse me of such things thinking they could get away with it on a forum where I could not respond. Did you?

Doesn't that seem as though 1 crazed cat knows an awful lot about a member of the forums who had not posted on the forums in the previous six months? Someone with whom 1 crazed cat had never exchanged a word on the Stereophile forums? But, according to the poster, he doesn't belong to any other forums which only makes me wonder more where he obtained his opinions of me. Which only makes his deep "knowledge" of my most detestable habits - in his estimation - all the more suspect, wouldn't you say? Why do you suppose someone who had just joined a forum that very day and had had no contact with me whatsoever would be so intent upon making their opinion of a long departed member so vociferous and condemning? That just strikes me as odd unless the poster has been telling lies about not belonging to any other forums. Why would they even make such a statement in the Stereophile thread? Who would care? Any ideas, james?



Now, from what you have already told us, james, you live in San Antonio. Wonder of wonders!, the same location 1 crazed cat posted from. You've also told us you do not use the same username on any other forum and that you always select another username so you cannot be tracked down. We certainly then wouldn't expect to find you on the Stereophile forums posting as "james", would we? No, you would have created yet another username to avoid being tracked down. Does "1 crazed cat" fit you, james? I guess that's for each of us to decide.

But, here's the fact I think is the most interesting about this whole Stereophile forum affair. The avatar used by 1 crazed cat includes a photo of a nice cat in repose which just happens to look very much alike to the photo of your cat which you posted here; http://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1955170#POST1955170


I admit this is all circumstantial evidence, james. However, from the preponderance of evidence which ties 1 crazed cat to james - someone who knows me from another forum perhaps?, it would appear you have lied yet again.







.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16292
Registered: May-04
.

" I have read posts in sp, but never joined. No one in stereophile is hostile though, now that they kicked you out. It's too dead for my taste."



james! In another thread just a week or so ago where you also went off, didn't you state you were now a member of the Stereophile forums and that they did now discuss audio? Shall I find that post and place it here, james? Why backtrack on that claim too? The problem with telling lies as you do is you have to remember all the lies you've told in order not to be tripped up by them.

Had it ever occurred to you Stereophile now has dead forums because they've kicked me off? Along with a dozen or so other very good members who crossed the editorial staff of the magazine and forums. I've visited there recently, it is a terrible forum at this point. And the archives of past threads are absolutely horrible. Not surpisingly, they have expunged any information which would cast the staff of Stereophile in a bad light. Take that much out and the threads are all but unreadable - particularly when you know what was in there originally. I didn't expect much from Mejias and Atkinson but what they did surprised even me.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1522
Registered: Oct-10
I am NOT this 1 crazed cat you refer to Jan and you have just proven what a truly stupid person you are.

1: 1 crazed cat lists his home as San Antonio. I live about 1 1/2 - 2 hrs outside SA and NEVER refer to SA as my home. Shirley stayed in SA when she came down because my little town wasn't happening enough for her. I see you missed that. What a surprise!

2: The cat in 1cc's pick looks NOTHING like my son's cat. That cat is short haired. My son's is medium haired and has blue eyes. 1cc's does not have blue eyes. The cat in 1cc's pic looks to be in a cage like you'd see in an animal shelter.

3: You don't have to be a member of most forums to read posts. You just can't post unless you're a member. He may have visited eCoustics and/or other forums and read discussions you've had with me or other ops. He probably just posted what other ops have said about you.

You mentioned something about jury duty on Wednesday. I sure hope you weren't selected because you'd surely vote to convict an innocent person based on faulty evidence.

Circumstantial or otherwise, your evidence doesn't mean a hill of beans. Think about what you accuse me of before accusing. This is not a court of law Jan, but if it were, you'd surely be ejected for juror miss conduct.

Jan, you really need to grow up and cut your crap now. You really are pathetic.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1523
Registered: Oct-10
No Jan, I never said I was a member of sp, unless I accidentally forgot the word "not".

The timing of me coming back to ecoustics and 1cc posting in sp: pure coinsidence.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1525
Registered: Oct-10
Hey Jan! What's w/posting in your crap in 2 threads? Did you really think I couldn't keep up with that? I can keep up with slicker folks than you!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1526
Registered: Oct-10
I have read the dead zone Jan. It's filled mostly with horrible vulgar crap from you. Sp is not the only forum that booted you Jan. It always comes down to you attacking other ops and getting banned as you deserved. The good ops? Those are the ones they keep! Do you get that? I guess not!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1527
Registered: Oct-10
I took another look at 1cc's cat pic Jan. That cat looks NOTHING AT ALL like my son's cat. You really are stupid for including that in your so called "evidence". Get a clue, will ya?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16295
Registered: May-04
.

It took five posts to tell more lies? Why not deny again that you never set hard and fast rules about tweeters? Stereophile determines your location by where your IPO address is set. Like I said, you have no idea what Stereophile's forums were all about and no one ever will now that they've b@stardized the archives. Lamont happens to be the only person who posted to that thread who is telling the truth - a rare feat for Lamont. I was banned for conflicts with the moderators who disliked the idea that I told thetruth about their "moderation" of the forum and the lack of any moderation at all except to alienate all the people who could actually contribute some knowledge to the forum. Just as I have explained to you a dozen times. Elk has no idea where I have been and what has happend to me. Elk plays games in his own mind that no one else cares about. Tomjtx and rigban are the two who challenged me to a bar fight because Stereophile banned their hero, "dup". Get your facts straight, fella. You do not know what happened there.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1529
Registered: Oct-10
More lies? Prove that the cat in 1cc's pic is my son's cat! Go ahead Jan, prove it. I go into SA once or twice a week. I often post from wifi in the city. Ever consider that possibility Jan? If you want to accuse me of being 1cc, at least come up with something that can actually be called evidence. Every time you post the tongue sticking out, you prove how childish you are. You can't prove I am 1cc because I'm not him. Of course, you'll lie and make connections that don't exist, but that only proves that you're full if BS and that's all.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1530
Registered: Oct-10
What I do know about what happened on sp Jan is that they banned you and you deserved it. It don't take 6 yrs of archives to figure that out. You suck as an op and as a human being. Thankfully, the mods in most forums have both the gumption and the motivation to ban your sorry butt. Unfortunately, the mods here are lacking one or both of those tools.

Now, really look at the pic of my son's cat and the one in 1cc's pic. If you can't tell the difference between those 2 very different looking cats, then you are a completely hopeless piece of crap.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16296
Registered: May-04
.

Let's see ... who is missing the point of what I posted?

Why! you are, james!

I never said the two cats were identical, did I? I said the two cats look very similar. Similar enough to be related perhaps? A cage?! Who takes a picture of their cat in an animal shelter and posts it on their avatar?

The icon fits you, james, get used to it.



No, I can't prove you are 1 crazed cat and I never said I could do that either. Everyone can decide for themself just how many coincidences they are willing to swallow. If someone buys your line now, then fine for you. If not, then I doubt they'll think much worse of you than they did before. You've already told us you don't want to be tracked from forum to forum. You have said you create new usernames for each place you drop your load of crap. So, whajja got to hide that you don't want to be tracked down? I'm not afraid to use my name. Why are you?


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1532
Registered: Oct-10
You don't make points Jan, so what is there to miss? NOTHING!

All it takes is a quick glance to see that the 2 cats are no more likely to be related than you and me. I don't know why anyone would post pics of animals in shelters on an audio forum, but that is where 1cc's cat appears to be. I have certainly seen people do stranger things than that.

I have only joined other audio forums recently. I have belonged to other forums for some years now, but not audio forums. I do not use the nick "SuperjazzyJa(me)s" in other types of forums. James is not my real name or any part there of. It's just a name I like.

Using your real name in a forum is a foolish thing to do Jan. You not only put your real name up, but your current city as well! If I were so out of balance as you have accused me of being, it would be no problem to drive to Dallas and find your house. Think about that Jan! A person who actually is sick living withing a few hrs of you, knowing where you live! Hello? Most sociopaths I have run across whether in person, in news, etc, are very resourceful. Such persons could kill you without provocation and not lose a wink of sleep over it. Add to that your bombastic style of talking to people and you have a recipe for disaster. Now, don't go taking this as a threat from me, it's clearly not any such thing. It is something to think about. Now, it's bad enough if you live alone, but if anyone lives with you, you are putting their lives at risk too. Everyone needs to think about personal safety Jan as well as the safety of loved ones. So call me sick all you want, but it seems that I am more concerned about your safety than you are. I shouldn't be surprised though. After you got good & smashed last night and came in here in a drunken rage, obviously, you don't care about your liver, so why worry about criminals right?
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1533
Registered: Oct-10
REAL psychos are out there Jan. They are dangerous and if they want to get you, they can and will. Now, I realize that you are well known here by your real name and changing nicks could be a pain. Getting everyone who knows you used to a nick, etc, but it would be much wiser than having your real name showing. Also, you should take your city off your avatar.

Next, you need to attend some AA/NA meetings. Get sober Jan!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16299
Registered: May-04
.

"Most sociopaths I have run across ..."

"So call me sick all you want ..."
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16300
Registered: May-04
.

This sounds quite strangely like something I've heard someone post on this very forum, "Submitted By: 1crazed Cat
Location: San Antonio, TX
For example, one person might like Klipsch speakers with HK amp. Another may hate i"; http://forum.stereophile.com/content/i-need-some-old-time-rock-acoustics



Just sayin' ...








.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1534
Registered: Oct-10
I have dealt with some psycos Jan. Fortunately, I know how to avoid becoming a victim. I like you only quote the convenient part of what I say. Grow up and sober up Jan!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16302
Registered: May-04
.

You don't like me quoting the "convenient parts" of exactly what you said? Well, that does make it harder for you to deny you said them.






ROTFLMAO!!! WHAT AM I THINKING?!!! THAT'S WHAT YOU DO, JaMES, DENY YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU HAVE SAID.


NEVER MIND.



OK, you don't like the fact you say things which are "convenient" to quote in order to show you said them and you don't like facts which are "inconvenient" and which indicate you know virtually nothing about audio, cannot discuss audio rationally as an adult and have no desire to learn anything about audio. You don't even like facts about cats!!!

And everything I say is seen as me "attacking" you, right?


ROTFLMAO!!!

(if the icon fits ... )



""So call me sick all you want ..."


Thanks for giving me permission. I'll take you up on the offer and I now expect you to abide by your words this time. Now call Shirley and tell her what you did and that she should also understand I have your permission to do so.






You're sick, james. And you just can't stand having someone else have the last word, can you? That's sick too.








.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16303
Registered: May-04
.

"I have dealt with some psycos ..."

"Hello? Most sociopaths I have run across ... "

"So call me sick all you want ..."



I shouldn't be surprised ... "


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1535
Registered: Oct-10
How's the hangover Jan?

You only quote what's convenient because that way, you are not dealing with what I actually say. You take parts of sentences out of context in order to twist them around.

You're pretty interested in getting the last word. I guess that makes you just as sick. You're a hopeless mental case anyway Jan. You're a bombastic cyber bully and you have no moral compass. So don't think I'll ever respect you on any level Jan. Again, sober up, grow up, quit doing smack and become a human being.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16304
Registered: May-04
.

"You take parts of sentences out of context in order to twist them around."



Aaaaaaah, james! still denying you have said what you have said. I take your words to show what you have said. Care to deny you said those things? And I do it because you just said I could. Care to deny you said that?

You make this too easy, fella.

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/683016.html#POST1958132




ROTFLMAO!!!




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16305
Registered: May-04
.

Oh! I forgot to add to that last post, you're sick, james, sick.


"I guess that makes you just as sick."

Sick as what, james? Sick as you are?



LMAO!!! and ROTF

YOU'RE A RIOT, GUY, A ONE SICK PUPPY RIOT BUT A RIOT NONE THE LESS.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16306
Registered: May-04
.

Nothing to say, I just thought I'd see what it was like making three of our consecutive posts in response to one comment.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16307
Registered: May-04
.


Seems kinda sick if you ask me.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16308
Registered: May-04
.

Your turn.

You do want the last word here, don't you?



.....................
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1536
Registered: Oct-10
"As far as I'm concerned, this thread is over."


Really Jan? Here you are still posting, proving just how sick you are.

You're still the fool with your real name and current city on your avatar. No matter what you think or say and no matter how many times you post ROTFLMAO, etc, you're still just an idiot. You're childish, stupid, bombastic, mentally ill and you suck as a human being.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16309
Registered: May-04
.




"You're sick, james. And you just can't stand having someone else have the last word, can you? That's sick too."


You've just proven my point.





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1538
Registered: Oct-10
You're just as sick Jan and just as unwilling to let someone else have the last word. You just proved it.

I guess when you decided to take, "call me sick all want." Literally, you didn't realize that there is a price to be paid for that.

J

"As far as I am concerned, this thread is over!"

I am still waiting for you to prove that Jan!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1539
Registered: Oct-10
Oh Janny boy, oh Janny boy, AA, AA is calling!

 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1543
Registered: Oct-10
Hmmm, I wonder what happened to Jan! He must've run out of Irish courage. He probably ran out to the liquor store for more! What's tonight's poisin? JD? Captain Morgan? Crown? That's okay, I can wait!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16310
Registered: May-04
.

"I guess when you decided to take, "call me sick all want." Literally, you didn't realize that there is a price to be paid for that"




"So call me sick all you want ..."


I shouldn't be surprised ... "



ROTFLMAO!!!





.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1551
Registered: Oct-10
See you got youself all liquored up and lathered up for a new day. Snort up a little smack too? Of course you did!

 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16311
Registered: May-04
.

I'm O.K., You're a Psychopath
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/im-ok-youre-a-psychopath.html

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16312
Registered: May-04
.

The thread has been over for quite sometime. It ended the moment you read my post regarding mixing speakers which you saw as an "ATTACK" on you personally. It definitely ended when you posted, "It happens again huh Jan? You quote me verbatim and still have no idea what I am actually saying. You choose to ignore words like; usually, normally, etc and then accuse me of applying absolutes when I clearly never did.

After making false accusations, you spin and endless yarn arguing with me about things I never said or implied. When I reply to such things accordingly, you accuse me of being mentally unstable or some other ridiculosly pathetic non-sense. In so doing, you turn the thread hostile and make it about you and your personality. After another go round gets to be too much for you, you yell, "F*** OFF!" at me repeatedly usually after accusing me of not having control of my emotions. I don't think mixing tweeter types USUALLY works out very well. I am not going to start thinking it is a good idea just because you try to brow beat me into thinking it is. In fact, to put this in your own language, "I don't give a dirty dead rat's hind quarters" what you think of me, what I say or what I do. Is that clear enough for you Jan?"

At that point you had driven the thread off the tracks and wouldn't be satisfied with even that. You're very bad for this forum, james. No one seeing what you've posted without provocation would want to ask anything of anyone on this forum. You've proven you can't be happy just being anti-social, you have to reach a psychopathic level of destroying everything around you. You are sick, james. Even viewing you as the damaged child you appear to remain, you cannot play well with others.

Go ahead, have the last word. It only serves to reaffirm how sick you are and, if anything, we know you never learn from your mistakes. You never learn anything.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16353
Registered: Jan-08
For me the problem started here:

Jan Vigne
Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16266
Registered: May-04

Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2011 - 02:00 pm:
.

"I do agree with you that mixing tweeters SHOULD NOT be a problem."


Uh, ... james, that not what you had said in your previous posts.


"Actually Jan, I have heard what happens when people try to use speakers with different types of tweeters in their HT systems. It usually doesn't sound good. I'm not saying that it can't ever sound good, but it rarely ever works"

"My other concern is that those rears are probably single driver speakers. All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter. Single driver speakers will only work well (sound right) when used with either other single driver speakers or speakers with cone tweeters. Either way, the highs are coming through a cone. If your fronts have hard dome, soft dome, horn or other type of tweeters, the rears will not be compatible with them."


You also posted this, "So I certainly did not pin this down as a hard and fast rule. I rarely apply absolutes to audio."


But you had tried to apply your tweeter suggestion as a "hard and fast rule" and as an "absolute". I got the quotes from your own posts, james, now you want to back off and say you never said such things?





If you hadn't said mixing tweeter types "will not be compatible" and, "All of your speakers should have the same type of tweeter", we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Because I wouldn't have posted, "The type of tweeter or any other driver in the cabinet is not important", if you hadn't suggest to Andrew that different tweeter types are incompatible in one system. Nor would we be having this discussion if you hadn't then come back to say you still thought mixing tweeter types wouldn't work in a multi-speaker system based upon a biased situation with incorrect information supplied. We just wouldn't be here, james.


Right? You said one thing, I said another, then you said you still believed the first thing you posted? You are now backtracking to say it "shouldn't" matter?


But, of course, you've heard it matter. And, there was no bias because you say you never knew what you were hearing.


OK, two things here about making comparisons in audio. As Dan points out, you did not change out the tweeters alone. You changed out entire speaker systems. Therefore, to say the tweeters alone made the change in sound is an impossibility. It is all but impossible to prove what you have suggested under any conditions, james, if for no other reason than just replacing tweeters in an existing speaker system wouldn't guarantee a good match to the other component parts of any individual speaker system. You cannot simply put one tweeter in the place of another tweeter and expect a satisfactory whole to emerge. You certainly cannot exchange one entire speaker system for another entirely different speaker system and then pin any audible changes in sound quality to strictly one driver's shape or material composition. So, first, you're thinking on your experiment is seriously flawed and your friend's advice, "His friend explained to us that the type of tweeter dictated the character of the speaker. He said that mixing tweeter types successfully depends on room accoustics", is also seriously flawed to the point of being factually incorrect on essentially all levels.


Second, the nature of a driver, be it a tweeter, a woofer or a midrange will be determined by its electrical and its mechanical parameters along with it's use in/above/outside of a speaker enclosure - not by its physical shape. There are literally hundreds of soft dome tweeters available from the various speaker manufacturers across the globe. There are likely to be dozens of soft dome tweeters which have been manufactured just by a large company such as VIFA over the last four decades. If all of those soft dome tweeters sounded identical, why would a company produce several dozen designs? Why would a speaker designer select a Morel dome tweeter over a SAES dome tweeter? Do you get what I'm saying, james? You cannot say all soft dome tweeters are compatible with all other soft dome tweeters based solely on their physical shape or their material make up. Nor can you say all soft dome tweeters are incompatible within a multi-speaker array with all hard dome tweeters. How many different materials can be used to make a hard dome tweeter? Do you not suspect each of those materials would have a distinct "sound"? A sound unrelated even to the physical shape of the driver? It is simply impossible to make such generalizations as you have suggested, james. No "should" about it, it is simply impossible. These are rules of physics and laws of acoustics which are fairly unbending.



"Rather than continue to debate this, let's let Andrew decide for himself if he wants to mix tweeters or not. After all, it's his money that he'll be spending eh? Otherwise, to each his own."


I agree that Andrew should make decisions based upon his own observations and budget. However, Andrew came to this forum for some advice and what you had originally provided as "advice" is simply not correct. Someone reading this thread at a later date will have incorrect information should they read your original posts. That's why I corrected your suggestions, james, because they are inaccurate.


"Again, this is not a matter of a preconcieved notion on my part. Having been a salesman certainly gives you an advantage when it comes to knowing tech details. Details like that are ones that I can only obtain when life's ever so brief windows of opportunity are open."


james, it's extremely difficult to have a serious debate with anyone who claims not to have said exactly what they have said. It's also very difficult to discuss an issue with anyone who ignores facts when they become uncomfortable. I will gladly concede you may have heard what you think you heard, as I've said previously on this forum I am not responsible for what anyone other than myself can and cannot hear. But your conclusions are based upon faulty assumptions and poorly designed experiments. By using faulty experiments and making biased and faulty assumptions, you have arrived at a point where you are giving faulty and incorrect information to Andrew and anyone else who might read this thread.




It is also incredibly difficult for anyone to learn anything new when they continue to slam shut an "ever so brief" window of opportunity where they might take advantage of what others are saying - of what facts are being presented. You prefer to be a member of this forum, james. I'm not asking you to blindly accept "my rules" as you've suggested to others. I'm merely asking you to learn a few things rather than backtrack whenever what you've posted is not correct. Learning is, I hope, what we are all here to do.


Jan

You can be a very good sound guy but you have to learn how speaking with the others!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1554
Registered: Oct-10
Thanks for your support Plym!

Jan in your post regarding the book about Psychopaths, every characteristiv there of fits you to a tee. You are also a bombastic smack addicted drunk. As Plymouth said, "You need to learn how to speak to people."

YOU have a problem Jan! YOU need help Jan! Get help Jan.

Also, Yo mama dresses you funny Jan!

 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1341
Registered: Jul-07
My God. First you say.....

"You are also a bombastic smack addicted drunk."

Then (quite unbelievably) you suggest (quoting Plymouth).....

"You need to learn how to speak to people."

Look at those two statements James. Your hypocrisy is off the charts. How can anyone who types the things you type have the audacity to chastise someone else for speaking inappropriately to YOU ?

Stop. Just stop. Do not respond to this with further ranting about how Jan somehow is responsible for your actions. You are responsible for your actions and Jan is responsible for Jan's actions.

So stop.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1555
Registered: Oct-10
Well Chris, since you're friendly with Jan, maybe you can talk a little sense to him. Until he either leaves me alone or learns to speak civilly to me, this will continue. That's just how it's a gonna be.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1556
Registered: Oct-10
"As far as I'm concerned, this thread is over!" The way to prove that is don't make anymore posts here!
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1342
Registered: Jul-07
"Well Chris, since you're friendly with Jan, maybe you can talk a little sense to him. Until he either leaves me alone or learns to speak civilly to me, this will continue. That's just how it's a gonna be."

You're asking Jan to speak civilly to you ? And you haven't noticed what a little sh!t you've been ? You always read things into what Jan types that aren't there, then you get p!ssy and type things WAAAAY worse than Jan ever has typed. Your logic is beyond flawed. You're asking someone to fix a problem that you own. Yes YOU OWN!!! Jan can't fix it James. You're going to need to learn to handle being corrected.....by whomever, whenever you're wrong. Until you can handle that, you'll continue to pollute this board with your presence. No issues until you got here.....notice that ? But Jan is the issue ? Please. Stop with the nonsense.

People aren't going to plant flowers around it every time they correct you....nor should they have to. Man up for Chr!st sake.

Ever notice how many people Jan assists that come here ? Ever notice how many are thankful for the advice ? Didn't think so. You think Jan is the issue but the issue is only you.....because YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH AN ISSUE !!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1557
Registered: Oct-10
Chris, I have certainly noticed that Jan helps people. No question there. However, I don't like how he speaks to anyone. If you and other ops are okay with how he speaks to you, that's between you and him. I have never encountered anyone who's method of help is abrasive, rude and condecending as Jan's is. I'd rather be helped by someone who knows less and has manners than by someone like him. Again Chris, I like you, but you're not helping here. Have you ever noticed that I have had many pleasant conversations with other members. Things only turn ugly when Jan speaks to me and that's a fact Jack! As Jan himself pointed out, I am not by any means the first person to ever dislike him. Other audio forums are filled with members who can't stand him. He's been kicked out of many forums and for good reason. None of these members that I've spoken to questions his knowledge. They, like me, don't appreciate his approach one little bit. None of this will ever change unless Jan changes the way he speaks to people. Plain & simple.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16356
Registered: Jan-08
Chris

Why you defend always Jan?

Jan is an impolite person with bad mouthed language and bad attitude over the others, do a search on him on googly and see the real guy, now James tried in this thread to talk with him but Jan started again his serenade as usual!

Are able to see it in this thread?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16316
Registered: May-04
.

Yes, by all means, Google me. Here's something I found posted on a forum I've never visited when I did just that; "[forum.ecoustics.com]

Post under the category of 'AMPS'. Lots of smart audiophiles there. In particular, keep an eye pealed for J. Vigne's posts ... he's very generous with his knowledge, extremely helpful, has decades of experience, and seems to have an abundance of time on his hands : )."


This was posted back on '06, long before you two "smart audiophiles" graced our presence.






"Things only turn ugly when Jan speaks to me and that's a fact Jack!"


james, I hadn't spoken to you in this thread when you came across my advice to Andrew. You were the one who decided I had "ATTACKED" you by making my own suggestions. You said exactly that earlier in this thread. One way or the other, james, you are a lair.



"As Jan himself pointed out, I am not by any means the first person to ever dislike him."


There's a very large distance between disliking someone on a public forum and being pyschopathically destructive to the entire forum. You, james, are the latter. Do you now not remember I also said there has never been anyone else on this forum who has created such problems where none exist as have you on so many occasions? You are unique in taking something that does not exist and cannot be seen by any other person and turning it it a destructive rant that continues for over a hundred posts. I repeat, no one else sided with you and your opinions in this thread. No one other than you disagreed with my suggestions. No one other than you destroyed this thread and will eventually destroy this forum. Figure it out.



"He's been kicked out of many forums and for good reason."


That is a lie, james, and you should know it is a very blatant lie since you've been investigating my life so intently. I'm not about to rehash the problems on the Stereophile forums, but Lamont for once told the truth about getting under the moderators' skin with uncomfortable truths. Don't believe what Elk posted, he knows far less than he would prefer anyone think. I was served up by the intern Ariel as a gift to JA to impress Atkinson with Ariel's ability to get rid if a thorn in their side.

I have not been "kicked out of many forums" and I've been here since about '03.

And we'd never be able to find your past history, could we? I can only guess what we'd find if we could. But you and P are better at tearing down someone personally than you have ever been at actually discussing audio, haven't you? Well, I suppose, if you can't do one thing at all, you resort to what you can do.



"None of these members that I've spoken to questions his knowledge. They, like me, don't appreciate his approach one little bit"


First, why the he11 are you talking to other people about me?! There is no "Jan Vigne forum", so why are you talking about me when you and I have never had anything to do with each other on any other forum - thank God! james, you get creepier and more psychopathic with each post! You also increase the number of lies you have told.

Second, the post I quoted from dealmac forums certainly doesn't jibe with your idea people don't like my approach one bit.

"In particular, keep an eye pealed for J. Vigne's posts ... he's very generous with his knowledge, extremely helpful, has decades of experience, and seems to have an abundance of time on his hands : )."



james, you continue to be a liar, a seriously and dangerously deranged individual and a soulless creep. P, all I need to say to you is, you are judged by the company you keep. For my part, I'm quite glad to have Chris with me on this. You really need to listen to someone, james, and learn to accept a few uncomfortable facts about yourself. You need to learn a few things before you destroy this entire forum with your antics. The number of people participating in this forum has dropped off noticeably since you have started posting here. You are the problem here, james.


"For me the problem started here:"


That's because you are an idiot, P. james had already had his chance to discsuss audio rationallty and to learn something about audio from several members. He chose to turn this thread into the train wreck it soon became. Stay out of this, P, the only thing you know about trouble is how to stir it up.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1562
Registered: Oct-10
Your entire last post Jan? ROTFLMAO! What load of pure jibberish!

Why do members of other forums sing praises to the mods for kicking you out?

"Oh, I haven't been kicked out of many forms!"

ROTFLMAO!

...and you call me a liar? ROTFLMAO! You're such a joke Jan!

"Oh Janny boy, oh Janny boy, AA, NA are calling, from drink to fix, your rants get dumber"

YOU SUCK JAN! YOU SUCK JAN! YOU SUCK JAN!

Hey Jan, did I mention, YOU SUCK!
I see you did your smack and booze and got yourself all lathered up for the night! I see you can't prove that this thread is over in your opinion, by ceasing to post here!

Ah, poor little Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1563
Registered: Oct-10
Oh by the way Jan, YOU SUCK!

 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1564
Registered: Oct-10
Andrew, should you come back and read this, I still don't recommend mixing different types of tweeters!"

IN YOUR FACE JAN! YOU SUCK!

 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1077
Registered: Dec-06
James, your first post reads like an absolute. Jan called you on that. You then added qualifiers. Jan asked you to discuss technical details, to somehow offer more than anecdotal evidence of experiments that seem to be very casually organized. This is when you said that you heard what you heard and you won't have your opinion changed by Jan's brow beating.

Now Jan did seem to maintain that you were talking in absolutes when you had added qualifiers, and I think this is what has you most upset. That's fine and I can understand that. And perhaps he should have just left things as they were when it was clear you were not interested in anything more than anecdotal discussion. But he is right in challenging you on your findings. Your decision to neither defend those findings nor try to learn why you might be wrong is not his problem. You came into this thread and put forth an argument. You did not want to back up your argument nor accept any challenge that it could be wrong. I can understand why he is frustrated.

I will probably be called a Jan disciple for this. Well sorry, but Jan has more knowledge than anyone else here, and goes out of his way to help people and educate people. I've decided to respect this even if he has sometimes come off as abrasive. Perhaps this is why I, and several others here, don't really have a problem with Jan. I don't take things personally. And lately Jan seems to have mellowed a bit, believe it or not. This thread should not be taken as proof of that, as it derailed long ago. You'll see that for much of the thread it was very civil between you two, only when you (James) decided you wouldn't play ball did it go south. Sorry, but when you enter a discussion you must be ready to play ball! Now you may say none of this will change unless Jan changes the way he speaks to people. And I will tell you that he won't stop challenging people when they make questionable claims - that's not a bad thing at all. Kind of what a forum is all about.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1565
Registered: Oct-10
Hey Plym, you are more than welcome to be in this!

Dan, he's now determined to tell me that this thread is over, but he keeps posting. Not the sign of one who thinks it's over.

 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1079
Registered: Dec-06
Whatever. I've said my peace. I was hoping you'd take more from my post but I guess that's not going to happen. Enjoy the thread and the countless more hours of productive discussion it is sure to lead to.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16359
Registered: Jan-08
Who is "P"?

If it's me, I question me why you write a so long romance then you are not able to write my name?

Super

Don't play his game with insult, that will not help you!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16317
Registered: May-04
.

You are the one not understanding what "over" has meant in this thread. Why? Well, for one reason, you must have the last word. That's a sickness when you must see your name plastered on every thread in every section of this forum.

When you are challenged in any way, you yelp. Look at you now, crying for P to come help you. Dan has confronted you with uncomfortabale truths which you cannot deny and you go running for help. You are sick, mentally ill. You are on an audio forum and you cannot discuss audio and so you resort to destroying people and things.


"Things only turn ugly when Jan speaks to me and that's a fact Jack!"


If that were truly the case, "Jack", why did you come looking for me in the CD section of the fourm?

superjazzyJa(me)s
Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1544
Registered: Oct-10
Posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 11:09 pm:
No more posts in "Speaker ohms" Jan? Are you all out of Irish courage? Better run out to the nearest liquor store!
; http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/683788.html#POST1958383



Anyone who wishes to avoid a confrontation knows well enough how to not go looking for more trouble.


james, you are a liar; not just once, but constantly. You lie to anyone who you think will possibly not have the desire to check what you've said. You lie to Shirley. You lie constantly to us. Most of all, you lie to yourself to make yourself believe all the other lies you've told. You lie to yourself when you say I have attacked you. You lie to yourself when you say I am not civil. You lied to this forum then you said things don't turn bad until I address you. I did not address you in this thread, I spoke to Andrew. You decided to make an issue of that and destroy this thread for your own psychopathic satisfaction.


"Why should we care about psychopaths? They don't care about us."


No one cares about you any longer, james. You've proven what you are interested in doing here. We want this forum to succeed. You are the problem that is stopping that from happening. That's the truth, stop lieing to yourself about it.

This doesn't require any response that says "Jan sucks" posted a dozen times. Don't you get that at all? People are trying to be civil to you when you are not being civil in return. Grow up, guy, you are running this forum into the ground.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16318
Registered: May-04
.

Take Plymouth's advice.

Pay attention to Dan and Chris.

"But he is right in challenging you on your findings. Your decision to neither defend those findings nor try to learn why you might be wrong is not his problem. You came into this thread and put forth an argument. You did not want to back up your argument nor accept any challenge that it could be wrong.

Sorry, but when you enter a discussion you must be ready to play ball! Now you may say none of this will change unless Jan changes the way he speaks to people. And I will tell you that he won't stop challenging people when they make questionable claims - that's not a bad thing at all. Kind of what a forum is all about."



Learn something!

"You're asking someone to fix a problem that you own. Yes YOU OWN!!! Jan can't fix it James. You're going to need to learn to handle being corrected.....by whomever, whenever you're wrong. Until you can handle that, you'll continue to pollute this board with your presence."


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16361
Registered: Jan-08
I missed this one:

superjazzyJa(me)s
Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1544
Registered: Oct-10
Posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 11:09 pm:
No more posts in "Speaker ohms" Jan? Are you all out of Irish courage? Better run out to the nearest liquor store!; http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/683788.html#POST1958383

Super

There is one thing that I hate> DO NOT MOVE A CONFLICT IN ANY OTHER THREADS!!!

I noticed that Jan is now more polite in his reply to peoples(I hope that last), but it seem that for you both it is hard to live in the same thread!


Jan

There is few words or used term which is not liked by all, please try to correct it then you will been the best of this forum, this is the only little problem, in simple, don't comment on personal or what he made in the morning but only on his stuff, everybody know your great knowledge, help me to tell "wait the Jan answer, this is your best guy to respond you" !

Have a good night!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1566
Registered: Oct-10
Running for help? ROTFLMAO! I simply told Plym he was welcome to stay. If he does or not is up to him. I'll still talk to him in other threads.

Again Jan, you made 2 posts filled with pure jibberish! When a converstion is over, it's because no one is talking. This thread is only over when people stop posting herein. That's what over means Jan. As long as you keep posting here, it ain't over.

Look through the archives just since October when I joined. You will see clearly that there are a lot more threads that I have NOT posted in than ones I have posted in. In that same space of time, you posted in WAY more threads than I have. So who likes to his name plastered everywhere? YOU DO JAN!

Again you're so concerned about my getting the last word, but here you are working just as hard at it. So, if I am sick for it, you're no better.

Again Jan, get off the booze and drugs, grow up and get a life.

"Don't believe what Elk says." Elk must have had the same kind of experience with you as I did, but I should believe you instead of him? ROTFLMAO! WHAT A BAFOON YOU ARE JAN!

Btw Jan, YOU SUCK!

ROTFLMAO!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16364
Registered: Jan-08
Super

Please stop it or use a language without insult!

None of you both can win with insult!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1567
Registered: Oct-10
Also Jan, I am not interested in your personal life at all. With all the time you spend in eCoustics, you couldn't possibly have a personal life. Every time I go into other audio forums, there is always talk of you. That talk never puts you in a good light. I can't help what I find when I go in there. I don't even talk about you in these forums, the others do. I even discourage that talk since you can't come in and defend yourself. The only thing I ever asked you about is your system since I am interested what kinds of systems people have. You refused to answer. Then, I saw in an archive where you told Plymouth that you don't talk about your system because no one ever heard of what you have? So what? I never heard of Sonneteer till Art told me he had one of their amps. It would certainly be interesting to hear about something I wasn't aware of. I certainly don't see asking about your system as getting personal.

Top Deals

Loading, please wait...
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Top Deals

Forum Help

Follow Us