Big E Speakers pt 3

[DukeLeJeune]

Manufacturers making miraculous claims for their products need to back em up. Failing to do is false advertising at the very least - fraud is perhaps a more apt term.

No, failing to document claims is not the same thing as false advertising or fraud.

You'd have to know that the claims are false to legitimately make the accusation of false advertising, and you'd have to know that the claimants knew they were false to legitimately accuse them of fraud.

Since you know neither, your aggressive wording here is based on emotion. You can express skepticism without going emotional.

 

[christw]

True - that aint BGM's cross to bare, but trying to put the burden of proof for extraordinary claims on the skeptical user/ potential customer / actual paid-in owner would be even more misplaced.

That's cool, I'm a customer who's willing to subject my own cabinets for quantitative analysis provided anyone steps up. All they have to do is pay shipping. Until then I don't see a point in polluting this thread with conjecture. (By definition that's what it is!)

Perhaps your time would be better spent finding someone to test them rather than propagating personal attacks on the integrity of Mike, his affiliates, and his customers.

 

[mntngrown]

Whoah, nellie.

Sorry, but playing the "do you even play/gig bass" card ain't exactly solid ground, either. (Duke doesn't, and so what if he doesn't?) And this *is* the amps section, where gear talk happens, and so does speaker design and all matters acoustic... the science of making things heard, which is what an amp does.

FWIW, arjank ain't the serial/cereal whizzer I was speaking of earlier. and there's nothing wrong with a little debate. If he's wrong about his thoughts on what the design does and how it works, what better place for the creators to issue a rebuttal?

Yeah, it's called talkbass, and I'm here for talk. But I'm not very interested in lots of talk about how awesome something is, even if it *is* awesome, and even if I already know it because I own (or have at least heard) it. I like to know how things tick. And if this really is some sort of acoustic breakthrough... fantastic. I want to know all about it. I expect to see some talk about it, and that includes debate over anything that seems to defy current boundaries or break new ground in a field where that seldom happens.

If you are referring to my post, What I said was gigged one or heard one gigged. Duke has helped tweak these cabs, (crossovers), run tests through them, and is licensed to use the design in his home theater products.
He is not shooting in the dark.

 

[blowinblue]

It must be tough when other TBer's are building and selling dozens of bass cabinets and you're not.

M. M.

 

[spiritbass]

I was greatly appreciating the flexibility of my 110 Flex this morning. Three of my four basses are strung my steel rounds, but the one I brought this morning had nickels on it. It was a bit too thick and full with the woofer in phase with the mid/tweet section. Flipped it out of phase and voila - better balance with the bass at hand. Yes, I'm spoiled.

 

[12bass]

While I certainly respect your opinion, and while it would have been interesting to go down that road, our policy at BGM is that we will not materially change our tests for one specific product in order to prove (or disprove) specific manufacturer's claims. That can be a slippery slope, and it has the potential to erode the independent nature of our bench testing.

We will, however, perform certain additional measurements (using 1w/1m) to highlight unique features of a certain cab, such as the extra charts showing the impacts of the various switches on the MAS-210Flex.

Ostensibly, product reviews should provide a potential customer with information which will allow them to make an informed purchase of the product in question. I am grateful that BGM is providing bassists with bass gear reviews. However, I think that the desire to keep a "level playing field" is a bad argument for products which are claimed to break conventional rules (and in this case, known laws of physics).

For example, recently I purchased a new DSLR; the particular model has an innovative new focusing system which uses new technology in the sensor to perform nearly instantaneous focusing in live view and video modes. Up until now, DSLRs were poor performers in these areas, and photographers had to make do with manual focusing when filming video. No previous DSLR has been able to accomplish this.

Any camera reviewer that failed to adequately test the functionality of this new live view focusing system would also be failing to provide a potential consumer with much needed information regarding whether or not the camera performed according to the manufacturer's claims. Fortunately, in this case, almost all reviewers have extensively tested the new focusing system and found it to perform as claimed, and this is wonderful news for photographers. However, any review which covered only normal functionality, but failed to test this major new feature, would also be failing to provide the consumer with the relevant information on the product.

Similarly, if a new bass product claims to have broken new ground in some specific way, it would only make sense for a review to thoroughly test these claims and inform potential consumers as to whether the product is actually performing as advertised. Whilst this would require some individualized testing of each product, it is the only way to adequately provide readers with the information required. Big E Speakers has claimed to knock down the known principles of acoustic physics, and is not simply another level player in the field. In short, the strategy of using a generic review template is simply insufficient for products with unique and potentially groundbreaking features, at least if adequately informing potential customers is the ultimate goal.

 

[christw]

I'm not sure that these cabs break acoustic physics as much as they use a unique approach. I also think it's asking a lot of any reviewer to be able to instantly adjust to a change in paradigm coinciding with a bourgening technology.

 

[J.Wolf]

Any camera reviewer that failed to adequately test the functionality of this new live view focusing system would also be failing to provide a potential consumer with much needed information regarding whether or not the camera performed according to the manufacturer's claims. Fortunately, in this case, almost all reviewers have extensively tested the new focusing system and found it to perform as claimed, and this is wonderful news for photographers. However, any review which covered only normal functionality, but failed to test this major new feature, would also be failing to provide the consumer with the relevant information on the product.

Consider that the 'functionality' (to use your word) has been tested, by several independent sources who commented specifically on the claim that it doesn't excite room nodes as most conventional cabs do, and that it disperses widely. Those claims were absolutely functionally addressed.

Perhaps a more apples to apples comparison using your example is: was the camera reviewer or manufacturer asked to publish tech data on the inner workings of this new feature? You mention functional testing, but what's being asked of here is way more than that. Were they asked to explain their patents? Were they blasted on a public forum by people who stated plainly that the lens couldn't possibly work as described, and did they have their professional integrity called into question as a result of said skepticism. Maybe so, I don't know, I'm just asking.

 

[nomatic]

Jake Wolf brings it.........

 

[Mike Arnopol]

Big E Speakers has claimed to knock down the known principles of acoustic physics

That's a tad offensive.We've never made such claims. To be honest---the MVW technology draws on known speaker design dating back to the 30's---but combines it with other disciplines to come up with a unique product. Duke has spoken to a great extent about decorrelation---it's nothing new---it's just a different approach that we use.

No laws of physics are broken or bended---maybe just being approached in a different manner.

 

[nostatic]

For example, recently I purchased a new DSLR; the particular model has an innovative new focusing system which uses new technology in the sensor to perform nearly instantaneous focusing in live view and video modes. Up until now, DSLRs were poor performers in these areas, and photographers had to make do with manual focusing when filming video. No previous DSLR has been able to accomplish this.

Any camera reviewer that failed to adequately test the functionality of this new live view focusing system would also be failing to provide a potential consumer with much needed information regarding whether or not the camera performed according to the manufacturer's claims. Fortunately, in this case, almost all reviewers have extensively tested the new focusing system and found it to perform as claimed, and this is wonderful news for photographers. However, any review which covered only normal functionality, but failed to test this major new feature, would also be failing to provide the consumer with the relevant information on the product.

And various sites reviewed the 70D in their typical ways wrt focus speed and accuracy. DPR and others didn't do a special set of tests for the 70D (and in fact had less testing than the 5D3 wrt movie mode), as they were already noting focusing performance in both regular and live view.

But the more important data was generated once the camera got into the hands of actual users as opposed to measureabators. So in that case it is similar to TB. The reviewers give a certain set of information, the forum trolls agonize over meaningless minutae, and then people who actually use the camera for it's intended purpose (taking pictures and/or videos), provide insight into the real-world performance.

 

[nomatic]

Nicely said Nostatic........

 

[12bass]

Interesting ad hominem.... those who seek empirical verification of manufacturers' extraordinary claims are now predjucially called 'measurebators'?

FWIW, I find it fascinating how easily humans take things personally and come to the defense of their perceived "tribe". This is not a personal matter as I see it; I don't think that way. Subjective reports are helpful. However I prefer hard facts and objective analysis, especially when investigating extraordinary claims....

 

[nostatic]

Interesting ad hominem.... those who seek empirical verification of manufacturers' extraordinary claims are now predjucially called 'measurebators'?

And the victim card is played. Now all we need is a Hitler mention to fulfill Godwin's law and we've won the interwebs!

The measureabators term was used directly in the photography example and is a term-of-art wrt dpr.

 

[nutdog]

I assumed it was a band you saw at coachella.

 

[mntngrown]

Interesting ad hominem.... those who seek empirical verification of manufacturers' extraordinary claims are now predjucially called 'measurebators'?

FWIW, I find it fascinating how easily humans take things personally and come to the defense of their perceived "tribe". This is not a personal matter as I see it; I don't think that way. Subjective reports are helpful. However I prefer hard facts and objective analysis, especially when investigating extraordinary claims....

What you missed, thus far, is that nostatic has tried one or two of the models, and has not adopted them, preferring his Roger Baer cab for his sonic needs. Not a tribe member dismissing critics. Just a very smart equipment tester using live performance as his yardstick. A number of TBers have gotten some good equipment deals from him, as he tries stuff and moves them out at good prices if he does not want to keep the items. Can we get back on topic, i.e. heard one in a mix and did not like it or loved it or mmeeh:

 

[J.Wolf]

Interesting ad hominem.... those who seek empirical verification of manufacturers' extraordinary claims are now predjucially called 'measurebators'?

FWIW, I find it fascinating how easily humans take things personally and come to the defense of their perceived "tribe". This is not a personal matter as I see it; I don't think that way. Subjective reports are helpful. However I prefer hard facts and objective analysis, especially when investigating extraordinary claims....

If you want to address the issues I brought up re: your previous post, I'd be happy to discuss your 'tribal defensiveness' claim. But since you side stepped it completely, until you do, I'll assume discussion about this is a complete waste of time.

 

[mntngrown]

Here's what I replied in a pm to Arjank, when he pm'd that he was not going to post on the thread anymore.


You are free to post in any thread as a TB member in good standing, as am I, until either of us are banned by the mods. I accept that your motivations are well meaning. I should not have put you in the same sentence as Seamonkey. Sorry.
I just try to respond enthusiastically regarding great gear I have used, and when people who have never used it or heard someone else use it, and offer criticism based on their prior theoretical training, I just wanna say "have you heard one?" i.e. I bought an Fdeck based on Mike's and many other members recommendations and would simply have sold it if it was not for me. Not gone after Francis as a hit man.

 

[mntngrown]

So what I am saying is when there is an overwhelming consensus by well meaning frequent users and adopters on TB, I stand up and take notice. I want to get in at the early adopter price points too. Learning early on that Duke Leland and Mike were on board was for me the total comfort moment. I was willing to jump in. Then I see there are people who I know have been through a lot of gear, or people who are in the performance forefront like DirtPoorRobbins or others telling us these are really something else. More comfort to jump in.
I recall naysayers being legion on the Greenboy thread early on, wanting to know what major act or famous bass player was using the fEarful cab. I ignored them. I simply wanted to know more about the cabs. I guess I just have to wade through the BS and focus on the real user info. Some guy who says he knows it is nothing special now that he saw the patent or the BGM measurements means little to me. Boots on the ground saying this is the real deal, or nice but I like Baer better for my needs or little ol me and my band members saying **** Howdy that sucker rocks, Did NASA engineer it. (my guitar guy actually said that) about the MAS48, mean more to me than those who never heard one.

 

[Mike Arnopol]

Interesting ad hominem.... those who seek empirical verification of manufacturers' extraordinary claims are now predjucially called 'measurebators'.
.

It's interesting. I was looking up the definition of "empirical evidence"
This was the gist of one

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[2]

So---if I read this correctly, an individual's sensory experience would be the most accurate indicator of the verification of such claims. Secondarily, the sensory experience of others that we trust---people that we know through experience share a similar perception and similar goals. Like on the DB side---if my buddy Eric Hochberg really likes a piece of gear---since through experience I've come to know that his goals and perceptions are nearly identical to mind, and through experience I've found his opinions and judgements consistent with mine--I could comfortably purchase some piece of gear on his recommendation and be nearly certain that it would meet my needs.

Even when a top magazine reviewer goes into depth in reviewing a product---it still refers to his personal taste and prejudices---no one is completely objective. So---no matter how in depth a review is---it's still just a starting point. One could say that the empirical evidence is in the measurements---and to a degree it is---but I still contend that the sensory experience of the function of a piece of gear in a gig environment is much more complex than most of the measurements we have available. Tom Ewars and Steve Regier measure constantly--I can't open my text messages or an email without some new measurement---they post regularly and discuss the measurements openly on their forum. And they love skeptics.

The empirical evidence I find the most valuable, while being secondary, it the sensory experience of people I trust, and in environments similar to what I come across. This experiential evidence is what gives me a more concrete example of the functional performance of a piece of gear.

Hey--you're from Saskatoon? I've played a few jazz festivals there---some of the nicest people on the planet. Wish I would have known that Sheldon Dingwall was there!