Alta Audio Alyssa loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I measured the Alta Audio Alyssa's farfield behavior with DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone. I used an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for the speaker's nearfield responses. A full set of measurements was performed with serial number ALY4004. I repeated some of the tests with serial number ALY4003. Other than when noted, the magnetically attached grille was left off for the measurements.

Alta specifies the Alyssa's sensitivity as 87.5dB/2.83V/m. My estimate was significantly lower at 81.5dB(B)/2.83V/m, and the Alta did sound a little quieter than the BBC LS3/5a that I always measure at the same time I have a loudspeaker on the test bench. (The LS3/5a's sensitivity is 82.5dB.) Both samples of the Alyssa had the same sensitivity.

Although the Alyssa's nominal impedance is specified as 4 ohms, the minimum impedance was 4.35 ohms at 125Hz and the magnitude (fig.1, solid trace) only drops below 6 ohms in the lower midrange and midbass regions. The electrical phase angle (dashed trace) is occasionally high, so I used a result from a 1994 JAES paper by Eric Benjamin to calculate what UK writer Keith Howard has called the "equivalent peak dissipation resistance" (EPDR, footnote 1). The Alyssa has minimum EPDRs of 1 ohm at 31Hz, 64Hz, and 128Hz, and the EPDR remains between 2 and 3 ohms in the midbass and midrange. The Alyssa needs to be used with amplifiers that are comfortable driving loads below 4 ohms.


Fig.1 Alta Alyssa, electrical impedance (solid) and phase (dashed) (2 ohms/vertical div.).

Strong discontinuities in the impedance traces at 174Hz and 291Hz imply the presence of resonances of various kinds. The enclosure seemed relatively inert with the usual knuckle-rap test, however—and when I investigated its vibrational behavior with a plastic-tape accelerometer, the panels were well-behaved. The only mode I found on the sidewall and curved top panel was at 455Hz (fig.2), but this was low in level.


Fig.2 Alta Alyssa, cumulative spectral-decay plot calculated from output of accelerometer fastened to center of top panel (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz).

Although Alta describes the Alyssa's woofer tuning as using what they call XTL, for Extended Transmission Line, the impedance graph looks very similar to that of a conventional ported design. The saddle in the impedance magnitude trace at a low 32Hz suggests that this is the tuning frequency of the Alyssa's port. This was confirmed by the fact that the nearfield response of the woofer (fig.3, blue trace) has its minimum-motion notch at the same frequency, which is when the back pressure from the port resonance holds the cone stationary. This is extended low-frequency performance for a relatively small loudspeaker.


Fig.3 Alta Alyssa, anechoic response averaged across 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis at 50", corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the woofer (blue), and port (red), and their complex sum (black), respectively plotted below 300Hz, 800Hz, and 300Hz.

However, the nearfield outputs of the woofer and port (red trace) are afflicted with severe resonant peaks, the two lowest in frequency coinciding with the frequencies of the discontinuities in the impedance traces. This behavior is most likely due to pipe resonances in the port and/or internal airspace and results in peaks and dips in the complex sum of the woofer and port outputs, taking into account acoustic phase and the different distance of each radiator from a nominal farfield microphone position (fig.3, black trace below 300Hz). I would expect this behavior to color the sound of male vocals.

No preferred listening axis is mentioned in the Alyssa's manual, so I performed the farfield measurements on an axis level with the center of the ribbon tweeter. The Alta's farfield response, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis, is shown as the black trace above 300Hz in fig.3. The response trend is relatively even between 300Hz and 1100Hz, but there are two sharp resonant peaks in the octave immediately above that region, with then a slight lack of energy in what appears to be the crossover region. The response trend in the mid- and high treble is relatively even. This graph was taken without the grille; repeating it with the grille in place gave the same result above 5kHz, but with 2–3dB more energy in the crossover region and up to 5dB less energy in the presence region.

The plot of the Alyssa's dispersion in the horizontal plane, referenced to the response on the tweeter axis, is shown in fig.4. There is a slight lack of energy to the speaker's sides at the top of the woofer's passband, which contrasts with the off-axis flare at the bottom of the tweeter's passband. The Alyssa's treble balance can be adjusted by experimenting with toe-in. In the vertical plane (fig.5), a suckout in the crossover region develops more than 5° above the tweeter axis. The Ribbon tweeter also becomes quite directional above 10kHz. This graph suggests that the optimal listening axis will be level with or just above the center of the tweeter.


Fig.4 Alta Alyssa, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.


Fig.5 Alta Alyssa, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 45–5° above axis, reference response, differences in response 5–45° below axis.

In the time domain, the Alta Alyssa's step response on the tweeter axis (fig.6) reveals that both drive-units are connected in positive acoustic polarity. The tweeter's output arrives first at the microphone, and the decay of the tweeter's step doesn't quite smoothly blend with the beginning of the woofer's step. This suggests that the best integration of the drive-unit's outputs will occur just below the tweeter axis, the opposite of what I felt was shown by the vertical dispersion plot. Note the ripples in the decay of the woofer's step response. These ripples correlate with a serious ridge of delayed energy just below 1.7kHz in the Alyssa's cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.7). Though the decay in the midrange and treble is commendably clean, I could hear the low-treble emphasis with MLSSA's pseudorandom noise signal when I was performing the measurements.


Fig.6 Alta Alyssa, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth).


Fig.7 Alta Alyssa, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime).

Though the Alta Alyssa's measured performance indicates that this relatively small speaker offers extended low frequencies and confirms that its ribbon tweeter is a high-quality driver, I remain concerned that the resonances in the upper bass and lower midrange regions and the others at the top of the woofer's passband will lead to audible coloration.—John Atkinson

Footnote 1: EPDR is the resistive load that gives rise to the same peak dissipation in an amplifier's output devices as the loudspeaker. See "Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads," JAES, Vol.42 No.9, September 1994, and Keith Howard's article here.
Alta Audio
139 Southdown Rd.
Huntington, NY 11743
(631) 424-5958

dcolak's picture

present your measurements and the method you used to measure them?

Thank you!

Best regards,

thatguy's picture

I vote that they send Herb into space just so I can read him describing what it is actually like to be there.

AbsolutesoundReader's picture

Great article. I've noticed a fairly consistent pattern with reviews using Rogue Audio gear where the reviews are often times not that favorable in the same ways. Lack of focus, fuzzy, not as clear as ... and disappointed. I understand that it was in your home to use like the Pass Labs INT, but they are very different beasts with very different quality levels. Even a modest Parasound Halo series A21+ would have yielded a much more favorable review session because it's a far better amp than the Rogue piece. Again, great article, but almost inherently doomed for mediocre results due to Rogue. Perhaps a second review using the same music and system but with better amps would be justified since the speakers only play what they're fed.

Glotz's picture

Herb has recited the transparent performance of the Rogue Stereo 100. He kept the unit as well. There are many references in his writing that speak to his continued usage.

Herb has also used examples of where the Benchmark AHB2 amp performed poorly for him, but many, many other reviewers in this and other magazines have found that amp to be superlative in many (but not all) areas.

The same example holds true for JVS' review of the ARC Ref 6 SE. The Benchmark LA4 was compared poorly to much more expensive gear, but again, there may be more at play here due to impedance mismatches (input and output imp requirements of the amp in use per JA in his measurements section).

He uses many examples as comparisons in specific applications / amps. Not every amp is a great fit for a preamp, passive or dac/pre.

The Pass is almost double the cost of the Rogue as well.

No, I don't own Rogue, but I have heard them over the past 2 decades and your comments are unfounded, and application-specific, most likely.

SpeakerScott's picture

....I'm not sure I've seen enclosure resonant modes come through the woofer that strongly.

The impedance curve looks like an undamped transmission line, which is rarely something one would want to listen to for long periods due to impressive ability for coloration.

Given the manufacturers comments about these issues being magnified because of the nearfield measurements (they clearly aren't, not when they are present so strongly in the impedance) It might be instructive to do some ground plane measurements at 2 or 4 meters with high frequency resolution long gating windows.

I suspect the issues will demonstrate themselves quite readily under these circumstances. I have used this technique to find the true audibility of pipe organ resonances on many occasions.

Scott Hinson

Anton's picture

Don't laugh.

Jim Austin's picture

The impedance curve looks like an undamped transmission line ...

Well, the speaker does include something very like to a transmission line, and Levy does say he doesn't like to use damping materials.

I've prepared a follow-up review, which will appear in the December issue.

Jim Austin, Editor

John Atkinson's picture
Jim Austin wrote:
Levy does say he doesn't like to use damping materials.

To support Jim's statement, when I measured the Alyssa speakers the ports were free from damping material. When I looked into the port I could see the rear of the tweeter.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

teched58's picture

Hi Jim-

Are the measurements presented here ok to rely on or should we wait for the follow up review? (This is a nice way of asking the obvious question, which is, what is the need/reason for a follow up? I.e., is there something erroneous or in question with this review that requires a second look and if so what?

Thank you very much.

Jim Austin's picture
... is to assess the audibility of the resonances JA's measurements revealed and attempt to explain the lack of clarity Herb noticed in a similar frequency region. Jim Austin, Editor Stereophile
Michael Levy's picture

The question becomes if Herb's room did not work with the speakers, or if he was hearing the effects of the resonances that JA measured. I will let Jim's follow up enlighten us with his experience with the speakers. I just want to add that measurements should not be our goal, they should guide us in our goal for great sound. Damping has long been used in transmission lines. I have found that it helps the measurements while harming the dynamics and depth of the bass and makes a speaker less musical.

Glotz's picture

And it is part and parcel to the extended bass response.

Not saying it's perfect, and there are tradeoffs.

beave's picture

Which resonance do you believe to be intentional? There are several from the port and one higher in frequency from the midwoofer.

Glotz's picture

It is the inevitable result of woofer loading in this enclosure.

The bass extension is very impressive for its size. It is the result of the unique chambering in the cabinet.

It is up to individual listeners to determine whether they are (collectively) deal-breakers or deal-makers.

beave's picture

Surely you don't include the midwoofer cone resonance when you say "all of them?" It has little or nothing to do with the bass extension.

That impressive bass extension comes with other tradeoffs too. The (voltage) sensitivity is quite low, and the impedance isn't all that high. That makes them a demanding load IMO.

What's more, we don't get any measurements for THD or for how loudly the bass will play before compression, excessive distortion, or woofer bottoming occurs.

So the bass extension needs to be put into context, as it always does with any speaker.

Glotz's picture

I agree. But with the bass extension, there is a good chance that output will mask those resonances. It could also be somewhat room-dependent.

Undamped transmission-line can be a boon, even with the worse load. Again, I would rather take advantage of its difficult load with more power (parts-capable, of course) and get that additional 10 or more Hz and work with room nodes to reduce whatever additional resonances are excited in-room. I would also think a larger room be an important factor to bliss here as well. Lastly, underdamped bass is not a reason to kill oneself nor the speakers!

I own several pairs of newer Magneplanars and getting the room to work with both speakers is utterly important, in completely different ways than these types of speaker.

We would all need to hear the speakers in our systems before rushing to judgment. I do not believe Mr. Levy would rush to market with a speaker that isn't ready. Perhaps it could use a revision, but I have Not Heard the speaker and cannot to speak to that speculation.

Even in theory, to do that is dangerous. Listening is believing.. (Lol!)

Glotz's picture

He explicitly found each of those 3 frequency resonances to be benign and insignificant to music programs played in Jim's larger room. The room also allowed the transmission line to load the room more properly with less discontinuities between the two drivers.

For an different example, Magnepans are similar but again very different in how they load large and small rooms, not to mention their point-source radiation form. Their resonances change based on the connection to the floor their supported by, and the frame becomes the cabinet, when viewed as a 'tuning-fork' / vibration perspective. Carpet-piercing spikes become essential in tuning the speakers with groundness and impact. Other forms of 'connection' become critical on hardwoods.

The speaker tuning and a different design perspective gives this speaker its own unique sound. He also states that unique sound is significant to the music it produces, and something he really values.

Listening really is the only way to determine what one thinks about a given component, and yet that does not still tell us what the complete truth is regarding that one component. It takes more rooms and more systems before a full picture develops.

We should keep in mind that the first time Herb heard these speakers there were no obvious caveats, but rather he uncovered them during his extended auditioning in his room. 2 different rooms of large and small dimensions.

More than we see and hear is always at play, and in this case Herb's room dimensions, which require a different approach. Not wrong or lacking, just different. It may prevent a sub or sub-bass system (lol) operating under 30hz. We simply don't know. Only Herb does.

CJThiel's picture

Herb's description reminds me of my time with the Thiel 3.6, which imaged like monitors with impossible bass.

partain's picture

You REALLY thought stuff would stay on top of this speaker ?

Anton's picture


(That's a joke, not animosity. I forgot for a moment I was posting on an audiophile website. So, once again, joke.)

remlab's picture


Ortofan's picture

... having spent most of his life without deep bass.

While bass extension is one aspect of speaker performance, how loud can that 6" mid-woofer in the Alyssa play and with what levels of distortion and/or compression?

In that same $5-6K/pr price range as the Alyssa, I wonder if HR would prefer the sound quality of a three-way speaker such as the Revel Performa3 F208?

Or, perhaps, the KEF R11, the Dynaudio Evoke 50, the Focal Aria 936 or the B&W 702 S2 - not to mention the speaker du jour, the Polk Audio Legend L800.

If he's ever in a horn-y sort of mood, not unlike SG, then there's the Klipsch Cornwall IV or possibly the JBL HDI-3800.

AaronGarrett's picture

Highly dynamic and deep bass is to me as important as a transparent midrange, in particular for orchestral and electronic music and piano but for most all music -- maybe not Joni Mitchell's Blue (which is a masterpiece, of course). Now that I know what it's like on a great system I could never go back.

PeterG's picture

Great review. But as a lover of stand mounts, I can never quite understand why one would have them without a good subwoofer. Similarly, I don't think it's quite informative enough to review them without a good sub. Or maybe a with and without sub comparison?

Jack L's picture



Yes, I always go for stand speakers for their being acoutically OPEN, airly & precise imaging due to mininum soundwave difffraction at the driver units frame edges & at the cabinet corners. Small physical size will allow the music soundwaves to circulate around the cabinet FREELY with minimum obstruction = distortion.

That said, just like any so called 'full range' loudspeakers, large floorstanding to compact bookselfing, NEED active subwoofers to ENHANCE their 'shy' deep bass performance.

Physiclly, bookshelvers got small woofers which limit deep bass response.

We got to realize the aural perception of our ear/brain is extremely non-linear, causing uneven subjective sound level: LOUDNESS at different frequencies.

The most sensive loudness frequnecy range: 2-4KHZ (mid-range), but bass response, say 20Hz is far far deep down the spectrum valley.
So taking 4KHz@+2dB, the loudness to our ear/brain at 20Hz is -78dB !!! 80dB difference = 100x 1 million power level difference !!

This explains why we alway find we miss deep bass from our sound system. Too bad - this is human nature.

This also means we need active subwoofers, which are readily available in the marketplace, to retrieve the missing bass music of the original music recordings & to boost it up to balance out the mid & high frequency loudness level, irrespective of huge or compact size of the loudspeakers.

So I've installed, in stages to make sure, 3 active subwoofers: connected direct to my tube phono-preamp: L, R & L+R channels a few years back. I swear I started to realize I missed so so so much (mid-deep bass) music of the original music recordings (LP, CD, DVD-audio, Blu-ray DVD, DAC streaming, tapes etc) without the these subs.

WOW !!!!!!!! Here come back ALIVE big bigtime the floor shaking effect of church pipe organs & synthetic guitar bass notes ! I never heard so livelike performances before the subs were intalled.

So why 3 subs so many? Well, if you observe properly, most, if not all, concert halls/auditoriums got 3 mics, if not more, hung over & above the performance platform to cover the ENTIRE performances on the stage. The purpose is to ensure to pick up the music performance+the acoustical ambience of the hall. The function of active subs is to reproduce ambience frequency 5Hz-100Hz picked up by the mics & hence recorded in the music.

Any home sound system NEED active subs. This is physics.

Any cheap sound systens will perform better by adding active sub(s)!

Listening is believing

Jack L

Ortofan's picture

... full-range, large, floor-standing speaker that does not need active subwoofers to enhance its deep bass performance.

About this speaker RH said "bass reproduction was easily the deepest, most effortless, and enjoyable I have heard through any system." The speaker "present[s] low frequencies with power and impact only hinted at by other speakers." "At no time did the woofers run out of excursion, as may be expected of even the best transducer." He concluded his review by stating that the speaker "is stunning in its ability to present the weight, depth, and impact of the bottom octaves."

Jack L's picture

......speaker that does not need active subwoofers to enhance its deep bass performance."quoted Ortofan

What model is it?

Jack L

Ortofan's picture

... the December 1989 issue of Stereophile?

Jack L's picture subwoofers to enhance its deep bass performance." quoted Ortofan.

So what make/model is it?

FYI, Wilson, besides build/supplies "full range" loudspeakers tagged up to half a million greenbacks, also supply a full range of active subs to enhance the bass of its loudspeakers.

Its flagship model sub, an award winner for past few years, "arguably the best sub in the world", is tagged for 25,000 buck. It is reportedly
recommended to match its top model loudspeakers.


Jack L

dc_bruce's picture

All speaker designs seem to be tradeoffs (at least it is for those that cost less than six figures); and this is especially the case with standmounts. With them, the question is always: How much bass do you want, and are you willing to overlook the negative effects of squeezing a lot of low bass out of small speakers? This review is a dramatic illustration of that phenomenon. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of taste, not measurement, I believe. My tradeoffs may be different than yours.

In my opinion bass is something that you don't know you're missing until you hear it -- either in a live performance or from capable, large loudspeakers, properly driven. Then, if you're like I am, you want it.

Digital room correction systems have largely tamed the problem of bass reproduction in home-sized rooms -- the fundamental room resonance which occurs between 40 and 50 Hz which unnaturally emphasizes bass fundamentals in that frequency range. This argues for a subwoofer, driven by such a correction system.

That said, using a subwoofer in conjunction with a speaker under review introduces so many new variables, I think, that it would be hard to produce a review that is fair to the speaker.

Glotz's picture

It's not. And I find Ortofan's comments insulting to HR.

Ortofan's picture

I find it quite sad to hear that HR spent most of his life without deep bass.

Glotz's picture

You're coming off a bit presumptuous about his need for a sub in his space. He has had a pair of Magnepan DWMs as sub support before, and he may prefer not to, based on his NYC room limitations. Keep in mind that Herb has been pursuing high performance audio much of his adult life. I am sure he understands the value of stereo subs, let alone mono ones.

Secondly, it is Stereophile policy to limit a speaker review to exactly that speaker under review, and to add more variables will introduce unknown variables and be unfair to the designer (as posters' have mentioned above).

Lastly, that fact that you find it 'quite sad' for a well-heeled audiophile not to be without 'deep bass' sounds less than genuine. I personally reserve such heartfelt emotion for truly tragic events and circumstances, and most would see your comments as 'a bit much' in light of the arguments you usually posit (no disrespect).

That being said, I do agree with your assertion that great subs do elevate the overall sonic landscape. Stereo REL T5i's do wonders for transparency as well as extending the soundstage back and out to the sides (placement-dependent), let alone addressing the response from the midbass down. Equally important, they also limit response past 30Hz in the T series, and is an ideal solution for apartment dwellers who need to keep it civil for others.

Jack L's picture

........ let alone mono ones." quoted Glotz


For the sake of yr argument, how are you so "sure"?

FYI. I got a very affordable audiophile friend who spent USD125,000 for an Audio Note Japan turntable/stand/SME arm+cartridge, & a 17W+17W single-ended Class A tube power amp of same Japan make & for the same price.

Such low power amp surely needs an active sub to boost up its bass. Yet this rich guy never got any sub yet, simply because where he spent a quarter million dollars, no subs there for demo. So he does not know a sub is so useful to his expensive amp. Surely dollar for dollar these are "high performance audio", right? So?!

From the picture of Herb's "smallish" listening room as shown in his review above, I already figured out the acoustic 'problems' there.
Unfinished bare brick wall, & a reflective hard coffee table placed right in front of Herb's couch 'sweet spot'. Reflective from hi to low frequencies & resonance waveform peaks go without saying.

A piece sound advice: NEVER ever place any objects between the front loudspeakers & the listening sweet spot, e.g. coffer table. Also nothing should be placed in between the front L & R loudspeakers. The idea is to provide free transmission of the music soundwaves from the loudspeakers to the listener's ears with minimum deflective obstruction.

The coffee table should never be there as it ruins the music. Throw it out!

Also don't neglect the couch we sit for music listening. No hard surface furnitures, being too reflective. Ideally, it should get all SOFT surfaces made of natural fabric, e.g. cotton. Even genuine leather seats are not good enough acoustically.

BTW, Maggie DWMs are bipolar magnetic WOOFERS (40-200Hz), used to boost up the ever bass-shy Maggie panels. Not subwoofers being discussed here at all!

Listening is believing

Jack L

Glotz's picture

You're being really presumptuous about things here man. You're admonishing my post with non-sequiturs and off-topic deflections about Herb's room.

What are you going on about if you're not keeping the discussion to subs?

I don't recall asking for 'sound advice' (though I do agree with it - in this instance of the room.) I have no coffee table in front of my stereo. I know why. Many audiophiles do too.

I also brought up REL's while mentioning the DWM's and they are not subwoofers either. They are "Sub-bass Systems". Let's agree not to be pedantic.

You just said your millionaire friend doesn't use subs.. So? You used an example that makes no sense at all, by rather presuming that Herb is like your 'affordable audiophile friend'? To sub or not to sub, depends on what Herb's ears dictate, not yours or mine.

You assume Herb hasn't made up his mind about the viability of a sub in his room. It could be that it's too loud in an old building with sprung floors, or many other room interaction issues.

You as well, from a photo no less, 'figured out' Herb's room for him? How nice of you! And most tellingly, you have never been there, actually in Herb's room. (I can only hope... you may be hiding under Herb's couch... right now... Run Herb! lol. I am kidding.)

But what is obvious, is that you are still looking to argue with me at every opportunity, with most old posts. That's trolling.

Jack, I have no problems arguing audio with you. Just please keep to topic and make a point you stick to.

Jack L's picture


If you consider my reply to you is "to argue" & "strolling", I only mirrored the argument & "strolling" you did to Ortofan above: "Reasons are pretty obvious".

First off, are you the owner of Stereophile Magazine as the way you post
here read so "authoritative" over & above whoever here. Otherwise, who has authorized you to set the rules of posting here that cross topics are not permiitted in the same post ????

So Herb has given you his power of attorney to represent him to post on his behalf ????

Any posts here are being read by readers worldwide. So whatever I posted back to you is for whoever read it, NOT specific for your eyes only. Otherwise, I would have stated in the caption of my posts to YOU:
"For your eyes only!"

IMO, "reasons are pretty obvious" for your behavior here.

Jack L

PS: I've posting in audio journals for decades, including Absolute Sound. Sorry, your behaviour here is one-of-a-kind.

Glotz's picture

Once again, you have not addressed the claims I made, nor the topics. It's trolling, not 'strolling'. But you know that, and I find your response disingenuous, as usual.

You did reply directly to my post. If want to make statement not directed at me, fine... do so, but reply to the topic post, and not as a direct reply to me. Otherwise, I will continue to respond in tow.

Moreover, Ortofan responded directly to me, not you. You had nothing to do with this thread, until you trolled me many days later.

Your behavior is not one of kind. You were just reprimanded again by Jim just yesterday in another post to Tony, where you tried insulting by calling him 'slobby, again completely unwarranted.

Jack L's picture do with this thread, "quoted Glotz


Ortofan has not responded directly to your insulting post to him: "Reasons are pretty obvious" 2 days ago.

YOU have not answered the serious questions in my above post to you either, regarding yr dictating the posting policy here.

Again, you just dictate us another posting rule per above caption: no cross reference allowed.

FYI, I commented yesterday to Herb R's review of Sunvalley 'all purpose phono-equalizer'. Today, another poster: CG commented to it. For the sake of all other readers here, I am happy to receive his cross reference to my post to Herb.

So his 'break-in' to my post to Herb has breached the rule you just imposed on us here.

So again, who has authorized you to impose such posting rule on us ?????

Take it easy. Don't make yr life so miserable! Pal.

Jack L

Glotz's picture

Look up further, there are four total posts.. either you're blatantly lying or you can't see well.

And I did respond directly to Ortofan, as well as you. It is Presumptuous to assume that he (and you by your own assertions) that any reviewer needs a sub.

Ortofan's language was also insulting and condescending- "deepest condolences".

Moreover, I never made any assertions, rather the opposite. I used words like Perhaps.

You on the other hand, stated "How am I sure??" I never made any statements to the effect I was sure. You, on the other hand, made claims by looking at a picture of Herb's room, and to then give him 'sound advice'.

What are you talking about in regards to imposing rule upon you?

Are there other multiple, substantive questions anywhere from you? I don't see it. Restate them please.

Moreover, I'm not the one using all caps to get my point across... you should take your own advice

Jack L's picture

Get a happy life !

Jack L

PS: Let me reply to CG who incidentally did "break-in" my post to Herb re: "Sunnyvalley all purpose equalizer". His comment was so technically thoughtful that deserves my technical response ASAP.
I wish Stereophile would start up a technical forum for engineering oriented readers like Audio Asylum, which has hosted technical forums since decade back. I would be more than eager to post in.

Glotz's picture

Again, you deflected and should directly reply to CG..

Y'know where he could actually read the response... lol.

You didn't bring up any part of the last post...

Once again this is trolling.

Jack L's picture

... to go extremely deep, was swamping my smallish room."quoted H Reichert

Question which may related to yr above statement: is this is where you carry out your auditions?

Is there is a coffee table or alike seated right in front of your 'sweet spot ?

Jack L

John Atkinson's picture
Jack L wrote:
"Unfortunately, the Alyssas' bass energy, which appeared to go extremely deep, was swamping my smallish room." quoted H Reichert . . . Is there is a coffee table or alike seated right in front of your 'sweet spot?

Apologies for the belated reply. No, Herb doesn't have a coffee table or any other reflective surface between his listening position and the loudspeakers.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile