Talk but not walk?

uberwaltz,

I disagree that this thread ever really had a chance to be somehow worthwhile.  There are some issues touched upon in the OP that I think are extremely worthwhile and COULD have made for some really great conversation - e.g. the role of empiricism and theory in our hobby.

But if you actually look at the character of the OP, it essentially doomed this thread.  This is because it wasn't simply presented as something like 'Let's discuss the role of actual experience, empirical testing and theory in our hobby - what is essential to grounding out conclusions?" etc.

Instead it was actually presented from the outset as a gripe, as an opportunity to diss so Green could implicate some unnamed transgressors as "fakes."  This negative characterization is in the thread title, all through his post, even up to his last question "...why fake it?"

In a thread claiming some people (who????) are "fakes" in terms of their views on some high end audio subject...I wonder how exactly this thread could have ended well?

We could of course simply ignore the subject and tenor of the OP and talk about some other subject, and that could have gone well.  But I don't see how following the lead set by Green in his OP could have ended up anything but a gripe and diss session: his aim wasn't talk of empiricism per se, but at implicating people as "fakes." 


 

glupson
testpilot,

It seems that you accidentally placed word "back" into your answer about ice-cold water. "Refracting back" would be back to where it came from which is speaker and not listener. Of course, that is assuming that listener is not positioned behind the speaker.

>>>>It’s nice to see someone with a sense of humor. Good for you! 😬 Reynolds number? Are you for real? 😂

Prof

I am afraid I became more confused on the original intent the more times I read it and tried to anaylise it more deeply.
Either the OP assumed a bit too much with his audience( we are not in Vegas baby!).
Or his audience is much more fickle than the captive crowd he would be used too and asked what became awkward questions.

Either way I think is going nowhere here

Actually, it appears to me, an objective observer of the scene, that Michael assessed his audience correctly, as one talking the talk but not walking the walk. This is not Michael’s first rodeo. 🤠 That’s what makes this whole thread so amusing. And talk they do. Little chatterboxes. He baited them and they took the bait.

Gk
You are ANYTHING but an "objective observer"
And if you are saying that the op knew exactly how this would all pan out then that is not very encouraging.
Lets just leave it at that....

uberwaltz,

I’d say geoffkait is *very* familiar with MG’s modus operandi. Have you ever seen their exchanges on the Stereophile forum? I only just stumbled upon them and...lemme tell ya...watching these evangelical purveyors of flaky audio products troll each other for pages on end is one of the internet’s strangest and most ironic sights. ;-)
(Though it gets old very fast...)

MG the thing is yes this thread that you started has turned out to be a big nothing burger. Your main goal appears to be as prof indicated launch vague criticisms and convince people your place is much better and get them to hang out and maybe spend some money there instead.

It is what it is. That’s cool. Got it!

geoffkait,

I am very real. Laminar flow, Reynolds number, DREs, and whatever else. Unfortunately, my questions remain unanswered.


Wondering what someone with experience, website, and business about changing the way rooms "sound" would think about a hypothetical room with different Reynolds number is not much more far-fetched than influencing magnetic field of plastic or elevating cables from the floor to get deeper bass. In fact, I would argue that it is, in theory, way more influential. It is not that far from your idea about cups of water in front of the speaker. Maybe only with much more influence on the sound in the room. As you surely guessed, Reynolds number came to me because of laminar flow which somehow gets organized by those planks stuck on the ceiling. Now, if you could be helpful and explain the mechanism of that, I would be more than appreciative.

I am not sure what you find humorous in my note to testpilot, but I am glad you enjoyed it.

So Michael, you have taken your vague and insinuating OP and simply augmented it with equally vague and insinuating paragraphs.

Is it possible we will ever get anything specific from you?

I mean you once again disparage some mystery person or persons in which "folks" in "20 different threads" are speaking of things about which they haven’t the necessary empirical experience. Then you declare to us:

"That’s just a fact."

Um, no. We don’t actually have to take whatever you just declare as "fact." What you have just given, yet again, is simply an assertion. You don’t mention who all those "folks" are, no specific examples or members, so we can’t evaluate your claim to these "facts." Maybe these people are giving a perfectly good account of their own viewpoint. Why in the world should we just take your word on this?

You’ve already shown a cagey and dismissive style - implications and assertions without actual arguments to back them up - with "folks" like me on this thread, so it hardly gives confidence you are giving a fair account of other people’s arguments.

With a hobby that is based on doing and the fact that all of us have a system right in front of us, why would anyone want to put talk above actually doing. Makes no sense to the guy reading these threads. Or as I put it Why talk without walking?

You are doing it again, Michael. Throwing off disparaging comments in vague directions.

WHO or at least WHAT are you actually talking about? Give some sort of specific examples of a case of "not actually doing."

Because for the most part I see people in this forum DOING stuff and reporting on it all the time. We check out new speakers. We report on that experience. We do something more with our system - e.g. move our speakers, change a component, introduce a tweak - and people report on THEIR EXPERIENCE all the time. The vast majority of posts here are people doing things and reporting on it. Or relying on past experiences to inform whatever view they have.

If you are going to come on here and keep telling us that some significant proportion of people deserve your critique, at least have the wisdom and fairness to make it clear what you are talking about.

Nobody can defend a position against your criticisms - to see if your criticisms are even legitimate or fair - unless they know what you are talking about.

If I came on to your forum and said "There's a bunch of people here who just don't know what they are talking about; they simply don't have the experience to warrant their viewpoints."  How graciously would that be received?  And if I just kept making that assertion over and over, without ever giving examples or bothering to engage in anyone's defense against my criticisms...just how welcome would that behavior be in your forum?

But you apparently think that is "good guy" behavior who just wants peace harmony and to spread the gospel when you do it here?  Can you not see how this would be a problem?

So: again: Please just give us a specific example of what you would consider "not doing" or "not walking the walk."

Otherwise you are just polluting the forum with self-aggrandizing mumbo jumbo that simply implicates yourself as enlightened, risen above some unwashed masses you continue to allude to without ever backing your criticisms up . (And of course, this is accompanied by not so subtle hints to come to your web site...)

"...why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?"

Michael Green,

I think I may have an answer for you on this one.

For most of the hobbyists, this is hobby. It is not work. Most do not have websites dedicated to it or businesses to run associated with it. That means, they have no time, and/or probably means, to do testing of everything that might be out there or that they may even come up with themselves. They prefer to conduct reasonable thinking before undertaking. It does not mean they are faking anything, but that they are economical with their time and resources. In a simpler way, that is the way most of the science is practiced these days. That is the way that helped most of us survive to this day. Think antibiotics, food, transportation, you name it. People who invented or designed those things were hardly fakers. You may be looking at this hobby from a different perspective. Some might say that you are calling for a wasteful way of getting to some goal. The approach you seem to advocate may not be wrong, but may not be completely right either. It depends on the circumstances.

Phil Collins' studio builder's response about this thread is about right and this thread, as useless as it actually is, has become amusing like some kind of electronic zoo.

However, on a much more serious note than anything that has been written here, it may not be a bad idea to remind ourselves that this hobby may not be completely benign. Having a studio does not seem to help, either.

https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/47742-Musician-hearing-loss-phil-collins

Which trolls?

Off course Michael just ignores that my evaluation of his OP, the points I’ve raised, and my repeated requests for clarifications were acknowledge by several others here as valid and on point. (And I’ve also received various private correspondence saying so as well). And that a number of people here acknowledged the self-promotional intent of this thread.

Unfortunately people didn’t automatically genuflect and pat him on the back for his every pearl of wisdom and diss of anyone who doesn’t agree...as he experiences on his own forum.  Essentially: "Why can't I just come on here and talk bad about other people without being challenged on it?  I just want to state these 'facts' without backing them up.  Only a troll would want to challenge my claims!"

So...back he goes to where he won’t be challenged.

Having looked at the exchanges between Geoff and Michael Green in their rancorous stereophile threads, Geoff certainly got one thing right: pointing out that instead of substantive engagement with critiques, Green tends to label anyone who doesn’t agree with him or who challenge his pearls of wisdom as "trolls" or bad vibers.

And we see how this thread ended as well.

Nothing has changed.

Michael Green may well have some good ideas to pass along. He certainly has some fans.

But when he starts a thread to diss other people, and then bridles that anyone dare challenge him on this, then takes his ball and goes home without ever substantiating his claims....he only has himself to blame.

But I doubt he will cease putting the blame entirely on others, as his final post indicates.

prof,

do not take it too personally. You could not win. It seems that I became a troll, too, despite fully in good faith trying to explain why people cannot afford trial and error approach on everything. In fact, many would agree that it would be foolish. I am only sorry that I never got my answer about laminar flow as advertised on the website. It is baffling me.

Michael Green,

I just noticed your post and am glad I did not end up being a troll. I do think that both you and prof have taken your arguments too seriously. I tried to stay in the middle, focusing on more tangible things.

Hi glupson,

Certainly not taken personally!

I honestly think a thread like this can be, and to some degree has been, turned into something somewhat valuable. I think it’s a good thing to identify the types of posts that are "bad faith" style posts, including the follow up replies.

I think if someone has a problem with a specific person, argument or claim, he should be specific about it. At least supplying examples. Otherwise it’s just an excuse to lodge gripes without being challenged on them, and therefore not showing openness to the idea you are wrong, and letting someone make the case you are mistaken.

And that’s not to mention the undercurrent of self-advertising that puts a stink into the noses of many people reading such threads.

I certainly defend the right of high end audio salesmen and manufacturers to post here, as they can contribute valuable information. (Geoff even contributed to one of my threads asking about turntable isolation, and I appreciated that!)

But I don’t think it should be at the price of those people always going unchallenged, if they are making critiques, gripes or bad-faith posts, and disguising advertising for their own web sites or products as dialogues about something else.

(And I’ve had people telling me I’ve given voice to their own feelings about this thread, so I'm comfortable that it wasn't "just myself" that I was arguing for).

prof,

I kind of enjoyed this thread. Probably due to its bizarre turns. There were inexplicable characters, weird responses ("your adult diapers are elastic", or something to that effect), some concise and sharp observations, strange non-questions, a few topics completely unrelated to the original one floating around at random, a little bit of basic physics ("what is sound"), some pointers to other websites, one potentially interesting link on youtube (even if it was me who posted it), and food for my own thoughts rising from all the jungle I just mentioned. It was all quite entertaining. I learned, prompted by the thread but not in it, about some design features of airplanes, paint quality issues, how drums get tuned, botany (Nevada trees), CD-making process, dynamic ranges of albums I have, and a few more things. I have to give Michael Green credit and thanks for that. Had I started a thread, it would have died after a post or two. As this is supposed to be "hobby" website, I consider coming here "waste of time" or "entertainment" so I will have to admit that it served the purpose. All along, while following discussions on audiophile website Audiogon, I sat in silence or, at best, listened to Internet radio on $50 Bluetooth speaker. Not that I did not need room tuning, I probably would not have been considered worthy of logging in. Life is good. Just do not take it too seriously. I am sorry you got so upset.

Turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial forces, which tend to produce chaotic eddies, vortices and other flow instabilities.

The Reynolds number Re is defined as,

Re = fluid density x fluid velocity x characteristic linear dimension / dynamic viscosity of the fluid

where:

ρ is the density of the fluid (SI units: kg/m3)
u is the velocity of the fluid with respect to the object (m/s)
L is a characteristic linear dimension (m)
μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid (Pa·s or N·s/m2 or kg/m·s)
ν is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid (m2/s).

Reynolds number is proportional to the velocity of the fluid (air) which is rather low in a listening room, so Reynolds number will be relatively low. I don’t recall my pants legs flapping in the breeze whilst listening. It’s not exactly a wind tunnel. So turbulent flow is very unlikely or perhaps impossible. This is not to say there might be some advantage sonically to “organizing” laminar flow using shutters. Remember organizing laminar flow doesn’t mean there has to be turbulent flow or that turbulent flow is prevented.

I personally would have to experiment with the shutters to see what happens sonically. The viscosity of the air in a given room will be fairly constant except in the case of bowls of ice cold water, one or two or three or more, that I mentioned, in which case the viscosity and thus the Reynolds number will be different lower in the room than higher up. Reynolds number is mostly a function of temperature. And the speed of sound is slower in cold air than warm air. Therefore the part of the acoustic wave higher up in the room will be faster than lower down so that the wave will bend over and down toward the listener position. He will hear more of the sound, especially the treble, including ambient information. But because of the speed of sound issue not really Reynolds number.

geoffkait,

That is the beginning of what I was thinking about in my hypothetical room, or let’s say that room that you had copied the article about. Although, I was, in my mind, playing with multiple variables of the equation. I was mostly wondering about density and that was, in fact, how I imagined the change in Reynolds number. You picked viscosity. All the same for practical purposes of theoretic imagination. I envisioned different air composition. In my thoughts, I used Helium. I guess 80/20 would be preferred. That led me to thinking what happens to the sound perception (actually, I called it simply "sound") with changes in density of the medium and how it would affect the direction, energy transfer, and whatever else may be involved. Even that unfortunate laminar flow would be greatly affected or enhanced so, if it actually matters, it would affect the sound based on that fact, too. I went through those mind exercises without coming up with any conclusion I would be able to stand behind, but it was a fun exercise for me. Sure, it would be quite complicated to do it in real life, not impossible but prohibitive on more than one level. Making a room Helium-tight would be a decent challenge. For most, just the price of HeliOx would be ridiculous even for a relatively small room (and the one I was imagining was the one on the picture on MG’s website next to where laminar flow is mentioned and it seems quite large). I think that canister is around $700, but may be very wrong about that one. You would likely need many of them. All in all, it was just an exercise, not anything I would consider doing. I was not thinking of change of Reynolds number as means to enhance laminar flow (although that is how I remembered it at first), but as a product of changed density. In my mind, I changed the density which then changed the Reynolds number, and conveniently that would also do something to flow characteristics, in case anyone is interested in that part.


However, it all did come to me from my post you may not recall. In it, I mentioned how I was interested in what methods Michael Green uses to determine where to place his shutters as it seems impossible that placing them in the same position in different rooms would yield same results. You could get it by luck, but then you could also just throw a few pillows around and call it a day, too. That is when I mentioned I find it hard to imagine how it may be done because I would guess it would require equipment and staff for laminar flow measurements and then doing it at different heights and temperatures which I cannot imagine being very convenient even for a well-run business. I may be wrong on that. Temperature was that link from Reynolds number as it, as you pointed out, affects at least viscosity. That is why I actually did stop and think about your ice-cold water for a moment.

Velocities in any kind of listening room are probably very low and likely cannot be greatly influenced, but viscosity and density could, as above. However, there will practically always be some turbulent flow of air in a vessel, in our case the vessel is listening room. If the walls are perfectly smooth, paints differ wildly on that one I just learned, turbulence will increase with distance from the wall, making the middle of our listening room the most vulnerable spot. Of course, add a chair or two and all bets are off. I speculate that, barring a hurricane in the room, turbulent flow will not have much influence on the propagation of sound. I am not saying none, but not much. Of course, for this purpose anything may be important.

That all was just trailing on my initial question about "organizing laminar flow". All of this above had nothing to do with that initial question, but it somehow got out of hand when I thought of it.

The more I think about that "organizing laminar flow", the more I am getting a feeling it is just poor choice of words. Not that I am a firm believer in it for CD-listening purposes, but am focusing on basic statement I read on website.


I am sorry if all of this above is not written clearly, I just wrote as fast as I was thinking about it and as fast I could write it, I did not edit it as it is very late.

For the purpose of this thread, I just talked the talk. If anyone is willing to walk the walk and do what I imagined above, I will humbly admit you are a real walker.

glupson, as a matter of fact Michael and I both talk the talk AND walk the walk. He and I have both been exploring room acoustics for a very long time, independently. He and I have spent extraordinary effort and time finding out how things work. I was one of Michael’s first customers around thirty years ago and have measured the effectiveness of his Echo Tunes and Corner Tunes. Of course many others also were getting their hands dirty and developing products.

I designed and developed quite a number of room acoustics devices that address a wide range of room acoustics problems. My very first product was going to be Ortho Ears for improving dynamic range, modeled after Mr. Spock’s ears, but that product was overcome by events, perhaps fortuitously. Off the top of my head I have at least SEVEN room acoustics products, including some quantum mechanical ones. I developed the first comprehensive crystal-based product line for resonance control and room acoustics control. I have also spent much time and effort studying room acoustics dynamics, including mapping out the sound pressures of the entire 3D space of the room. I have built my own Helmholtz resonators of various sizes, including a 15 foot long folded horn resonator for very low frequencies. I have my own ceramic version of the tiny little 1” bowl acoustic resonators. My hands have not been soaking in Ivory liquid, Junior.

Getting back to the whole laminar flow issue for a second, we know that air moves in the room while music is playing. We also know that acoustic waves themselves travel through air at the speed of sound. These high speed acoustic waves striking a surface would be like waves of water striking the beach, no? So the dynamics of the acoustic wave + air hitting a surface would obviously have a much greater impact than one might imagine. That’s why I measure sound pressure peaks in some locations around the room that are 10 times higher than the average sound pressure in the room. That’s a lot of energy, no?

I do believe the whole subject of room issues is very real and goes way beyond what  alot of people work at with bass traps and wall diffusers etc.
After all you only need look at some websites to see what some are selling just as off the shelf items,
And I do believe certain people spending years in the research and counterpoint of these effects has been productive.
I wonder though with the wave of the latest electronic correction devices if this has somewhat negated all of this effort?

I wonder just what effect a unit like the Lyngdorf 2170 or Anthem would have on the rooms that already been heavily massaged and tweaked?
Would they be able to improve still further?
Or would they possibly make matters worse?
Be interesting to note the amount of room correction they attempt to make.

Personally I have known my room was acoustically terrible for years but then came along the 2170 and as far as I am concerned it did the "walk" for me and in all honesty I am just about done and really just sit down and enjoy the music for hours on end.
Maybe ignorant bliss and contentment but its my room...lol.

The sound gets refracted ("back" removed) towards the listener due to the change in the transmission medium i.e. hot and cold air

>>>>>I want to get on board your explanation. I really do. Can you be a little more specific and go into detail just a bit? So far I’m thinking hmmmm, maybe partial credit.

 It’s based on the same principle as why can we hear sound for longer distances in winter than in summer. You have already given the theory as to the why and how in the post above.

Since there is no air flow in a listening room you can’t create turbulent flow. You don’t even have laminar flow in a listening room.

Reynolds numbers?

Good grief.

We have such a conflation of different applied sciences here - none of which applies to audio! We are venturing into aerospace engineering and motor vehicle drag perhaps but this is nonsense in audio.

Waves on a beach? Good grief - waves in the sea are NOT elastic acoustic waves at all. Again conflating completely different phenomenon. Surface waves at an interface have orbital progressive properties. The interface is key - just like the major damage from earthquakes comes from “ground roll” at the interface.

The reason acoustic energy varies in a room is due to the reinforcement and interference of a multitude of reflected acoustic waves along with the primary. Since the reflection surfaces are rigid compared to air there is also a build up of pressure very close to the wall. Listeners should keep at least 3 feet from a wall - 6 feet is better.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Fellows you should study up on shear waves and their various velocities and polarities thru and on all solid materials in your listening room including solids in motion. Compressive becomes shear...on impact..or on solids in motion.Tom

But there is air flow in the listening room, you silly goose. 🦆 For heaven’s sake, don’t have a conniption. 😫 The air molecules are pushed by the high speed acoustic (mechanical) waves, just as waves in the ocean push the water. So, there is laminar flow in the room, and in many directions, obviously. There would not be resonance without mass and there would not be mas without air molecules.

Some examples where baffles are used to organize or maintain laminar flow for audio applications include air baffles for air tubing for my air bearing everything Maplenoll turntable, 500 feet of air tubing, between the air compressor and the air bearing platter and air bearing tonearm AND a small baffle in the air spring connecting air fitting between the auxiliary air canister and the air spring per se, maintaining a smoother flow of air during operation, the air flow velocity in this case must certainly be quite low, no?

@geoffkait 

Wrong. You are conflating flow and vibration. The air particles in the room vibrate elastically at musical frequencies they do NOT “flow” around the room. There is no net air movement Flow = Zero, Capiche?

Shear only travels in solids. Tom

The reason it’s said that you want a large size woofer or large excursions of the diaphragm is because it pushes more air is uh, it pushes more air. The air moves. Hel-loo! As I said acoustic waves require air to propagate, analogous to waves on the ocean. The air molecules like the water molecules are moving, at least when the wave pushes through it. So when an acoustic wave hits a wall, air molecules are moving. It’s the frequencies of the of the (complex) wave that we hear and that produces resonance of objects in the room, not of air molecules. A standing wave has a frequency, although the air molecules at that location move along with the wave. Reflected waves have frequencies, the air molecules resonate at whatever frequency or frequencies the wave is moving. In a sense you cannot separate the acoustic waves from the air, there would be no sound without air. In space no one can hear you scream.

Pop quiz - do sound waves have mass?

WOW!  This thread is a perfect example of how science does not and will never account for what our ears hear.  "Fake Science"!

BTW...Michael, I still have all corners of my listening room treated with your products and they make a substantive difference to my listening enjoyment.  Sadly, this thread has impeached your character in the way you negatively label those who don't say what you wish them to say.  Sad.😞

shadorne,

As you can see: anyone can make up, or infer, any hypothesis they want.
And if the method of "testing" the hypothesis is merely subjective, then the results can be confirmed by the imagination of the subject.  Hence...you have endless tweaks based on wild hypotheses being "confirmed" because "I heard the difference!"

hifiman5,

WOW! This thread is a perfect example of how science does not and will never account for what our ears hear. "Fake Science"!

(Edit): Is that the kind of empirical understanding promoted at the Michael Green site?

BTW, I agree with your assessment of Green’s behavior in this thread , obviously. Labeling anyone who challenges your claims "trolls" instead of simply responding to the arguments is never a good look.

And yet material and geometry define shear velocity and polarity hence how and why impacted or vibrating solids modulate the air. Tom

Damp those vibrating solids.  Vibration and resonance are the enemies of great sound.  That or the audiophile must "manage" the nature of those kinetics.

Wow very interesting.  My next tweak might have to be a quantum windbreaker with hoody.  Maybe graphene treated.  Just shooting the breeze....

Unfortunately Mr Green apparently has chosen to not shed any light here on any of this.  Too bad.   The answers would appear to require a road trip to his very interesting web site. 

Don't need to know the science of sound to make an over damped bad sounding road trip. Tom

Then don’t over damp it. Hel-looo! Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything. You’re obsessed with rubber and rubber tires. Expand your mind. Besides it’s not that tires that are isolating the car. And don’t start up with the old but there’s no such thing as isolation routine. That got old a long time ago. Almost as old as shear.

You guys should be listening to (imperfectly reproduced) music instead of posting here.

Speak for yourself. 

@twoleftears   Don't believe "perfection" exists in audio reproduction.  If so, we would all be questing after the same stuff to achieve audio nirvana.🤫

mapman
Wow very interesting. My next tweak might have to be a quantum windbreaker with hoody. Maybe graphene treated. Just shooting the breeze....

>>>>That would be swell, Moops. Might provide us a respite from your breaking wind on this thread. 

This thread turned out to be a total dud. I did have high hopes.

GK even your usual theoretical babblings of no real consequence and nice cut and pastes from Wikipedia relating to fluid dynamics couldn’t help it.

Seems you are more the kiss of death when ever something possibly new, controversial and interesting comes up around here.

I would go to Mr. Green’s website with at least some hope of maybe learning something new and useful. I would go to yours only for comic relief.

Geoff,

Sorry you cannot learn or understand anymore as you are truly isolated in thought.

Your brain has about the same shear velocity and density as lead. NASA must have been happy to eject you because your days of grandeur are more like delusions. Tom

Tom, sorry if I upset you. Please explain what you mean. By shear and Polarity and how there’s no such thing as isolation. You just keep repeating the words as if they are self explanatory. Type slow since I’m from NASA. 

Not upset. Gotta catch a plane home..later..but until that time keep looking and hunting. Shear is all around..just not understood by many. Tom

Good luck with all that, moopman. You’re gonna need it. Best wishes in your quest for mediocrity.

Thanks. Especially if that means you are done with your moopman obsession.  It's getting a little creepy.

@geoffkait 
Could you be any more confused? No, the air doesn't move. It compresses. That's how the movement of sound in a space of air is modeled. That's why the acoustic center of a driver is a virtual point somewhere out in front of the driver. It why horns work. 

Kosst,

He knows. Even the janitors at Nasa know! Don’t you realize GK just likes to say things to see if anyone is paying attention to him? Very attention starved! Must have had a tough childhood. Poor guy!

My wife can detect the slightest draft. Next time I get things cranking, I’ll close the windows or turn off the AC and check with her. She will know if the air is still flowing for sure!