Talk but not walk?

geoffkait,

Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?

It would be hard for anyone to help you out on this one as you omitted at least one more very possible answer. Maybe they thought of it, applied some theory, did some testing, and decided it was not good enough, or not good at all. In short, maybe they thought and realized something someone else did not.

"...or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear."

Just following this thread you can see that tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear are not that universally held dear. Some of the manufacturers that are embracing what you hold dear may be considered "snake oil salesmen" to others who would rather that manufacturers that they prefer stay away from that kind of approach. That is why there are so many manufacturers and products on the market. Pick and choose what you like.

I cannot find it now to quote it, but someone in the previous few threads mentioned something to the effect of "or flow does not move at all". If it is not moving, would you still call it a flow? "Flow with velocity of zero?"

When it comes to Michael Green’s speakers, as unusual and maybe even strange their design may seem to be, it is probably unfair to blast them as worthless without hearing them. So is the case with any other speaker on the market. Michael Green’s explanation may not be to your liking and may be completely out of what you can accept (logically, technically, even emotionally), but speakers are not Michael Green himself. Don’t deem them worthless without giving them at least some fair benefit of the doubt. probably the only way to check the validity of Michael’s, and your own, claims is to stop by and give them a listen. After that, full attack on them and Michael’s merit as a speaker designer may, or may not, be warranted. You listen to Dynaudio, you listen to Harbeth, you listen to Spendor, you listen to something else and some of them are also designs, improved over time, dragging from the time white vans were about to be invented. I am not trying to defend Michael Green at all, far from that, but I would prefer to stay fair to the speakers themselves.

Michael Green,

Just quickly and only once going over your explanation of laminar flow and its effect in the room (I usually read it a few times not to miss some details and to give my mind time to ruminate on it), I got a sense that "laminar flow" is really quite a bent term in these discussions. Kind of like "bent by 168 degrees". Your explanation does seem fairly simple, but choice of "laminar flow" may be a little incorrect. Ever since I started following this thread, I have been trying to think of a more correct term to use for what you refer to as a "laminar flow" and, even more so. "organizing" it. Your pieces placed on the ceiling, or walls where almost the only laminar flow in the room can be expected, will have a hard time avoiding not disrupting it. This is not to say they may not contribute to changing the sound for better, whatever that better may be, by affecting the propagation of the sound in some way, pressure zones, layman’s echo, reverberation, anything, but laminar flow they will disrupt and not organize (I took that "organize" as "enhance" or "make it laminar"). It is just what it is. Everything else may be up for debate.

As I understand it from the answer MG’s approach with speakers is to use resonant cabinets like the housing of a musical instrument and then add a proprietary internal device of some sort to adjust or tune the resonance by applying pressure to the cabs from the inside. Tuning is his thing after all!

My reaction is at least that is something that should have an audible effect if intended. There are other vendors that use unusually resonant cabinets (as opposed to attempting to make them as inert as possible or the tuning adjustable by the user). Harbeth is an example I believe. Tonian is another I recall. All cabinets affect the sound that is emitted so it is probably accurate to say that each is tuned a certain way, either by design or accident.

So the concept at least makes sense and is something fairly unique and different. That passes test 1. Next from the vendor’s perspective would be the realization of the concept ie how the speaker is designed constructed and actually sounds, if one were interested enough to want an audition.

I am not quite sold in terms of the value of the concept to me personally or shelling out the dollars but that’s OK. I do not shell out any dollars for most things talked about here, whether great, mediocre, or total nonsense. Only so many dollars to shell out. Everyone chooses what matters most to them and spends accordingly.

I gave the website a quick once over and I did not find it particularly informative though the unified focus on "tuning" is unique. Needs some work IMHO.

.

Geoffkait how about walk the walk not just talk the talk endlessly and build some actual audio gear yourself that actually makes music the right way according to you , take over the market, and show them all how to actually do it right, big mouth? You can start now. We will wait. I’m talking source devices, amps and speakers, you know the things that actually produce music, not your comedy act tweaks.

mapman,

Essentially I agree. As I mentioned early on, I find the claims from Green to span from the plausible - likely to make a sonic difference - to the implausible. The tunable speakers (and certain types of room treatment) certainly suggest they would plausibly alter the sound. And they may sound great...I might even love the sound myself. (And I have loved the sound of speakers made by a company that I believe to be making unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims in other areas, e.g. Shun Mook).

But it's pretty easy for anyone to make a speaker that sounds different from another speaker.

It’s too bad it’s mixed in with other woo-woo sounding stuff that we aren’t getting straight answers to.

Yes a very mixed bag most likely. Not my cup of tea in any way personally.   I will continue to tweak in other ways when needed.