The Contour System – Directional Wiring of Audio Parts

To me the situation is similar to that of a gramophone and suggests that the presence effect is completely independent of the frequency response.

Fascinating ideas and thread...

I am sure that Anton is on the right track...

Just a word about my own experience and listenings experiments in acoustic...

We dont listen first to frequency like a mic does with a tested frequency response...

We have 2 ears which are very different fom one anther , and i used this in my last acoustical device....

We listen not first to some frequency like assume those who use an electronic equalizer and a mic with a tested response frequency for a PRECISE ARTIFICIAL location...

We listen to some multi dimensional complex different wavefronts, a bunch of frequencies with a "relatively" large bandwidth,( like the voice timbre of a singer) coming from the tweeter, the bass drivers, and from early and late reflections in a PRECISE NATURAL time frame...

Human ears evoluted to locate real sound like voices in space and human timbre recognition is key to social relation...

I used this fact creating my H.M.E. (Helmoltz mechanical equalizer): imagine a snake with head and tail...

The HEAD begins a few centimeters from the tweeter of one of my speakers with 2 pipes near the tweeter and 2 bottles near the port hole; then going to my left on the first reflection point with 6 pipes; then to my rear with the MAIN BODY of the snake, 8 pipes ,one 8 feet high; and then goes to the second reflection point to my right, with 6 pipes and finally ends at the TAIL, with 3 pipes near the bass driver of this speaker, with one bottle near the port hole....Asymmetric distribution of pipes and bottles and differences between them are very important at the head and tail....


Then asymetrical "DIRECTIVITY" of the wavefronts coming from each speakers and their reflections in the room is paramount factor to recreate 3 dimensionality of the music with my H.M.E. ....All this is related to the serious studies about thresholds in timing perceptions experiments of some complementary acoustical factors like LEV and ASW....

Audio is acoustic experience first....

I think that analog is more resistant to negative impact of a lack in acoustic control.... This is the reason why analog appear superior to digital....Time is the most important factor in acoustic, and timing of bits is mathematically equivalent but not acoustically equal to the real timing of frontwaves for the 2 ears... We need good concrete acoustical settings to recreate the original acoustic live event where choices made by recording engineer are trade-off choices altering the timbre original  experience for example.... The information "cues" in the recorded cd or vinyl need to be activated in a room or in space... If  good acoustical controls  are not there  in our room the analog sound is more resistant in a destructive acoustical environment or in an not enough controlled one...

I agree 100%. Successful 78 recordings sound extremely realistic on the gramophone, and I feel that no electrical system can so accurately copy the effect of a live presence during a performance as a mechanical gramophone. In this paradoxical situation, again, our misunderstanding of the properties of electricity and human perception can be traced.

Or if you ever did the can with string thing as a kid, you can totally tell it is a real person and not a recording on the other end. The old telephone calls were like that too. Not this cell phone BS we have today.  

Well, how does one even respond to something like this?  Sort of shoots the whole thread in the foot.

Hate to break it to you, but phone lines have started to be digitized in the early 70s, and by 80, 40+ years ago, your phone call almost definitely passed through an ADC and DAC. 

@ausaudio
Hate to break it to you, but phone lines have started to be digitized in the early 70s, and by 80, 40+ years ago, your phone call almost definitely passed through an ADC and DAC.

Ausaudio, maybe it was in the USA, but I'm from Russia. Our first digital telephone stations appeared in the 1990s, and then only in large cities. In St. Petersburg (5 million people) back in 2000, some stations did not understand the tone set, that is, they were still relay, purely analog.

But it's not about the dates, of course, but what I wrote, it's true. I had a favorite "audiophile" rotary dial Siemens phone with a carbon microphone, my friend had the same one, so I called him up and evaluated the changes in the liveliness and fullness of the sound of his system on the phone. Of course, it was not possible to evaluate everything, but in general it was clear what was what. Now with digital and even more so with mobile communication, this is simply impossible.

Ausaudio, maybe it was in the USA, but I'm from Russia. Our first digital telephone stations appeared in the 1990s, and then only in large cities. In St. Petersburg (5 million people) back in 2000, some stations did not understand the tone set, that is, they were still relay, purely analog.

The person who posted that comment on telephones was from the USA.


You are doing nothing more than romanticizing a bygone era. Old analog PSTN was pretty awful, almost all aspects of it. Low sensitivity microphone, low bandwidth, very low signal to noise.  Modern communications, especially some of the Internet based voice platforms are so far ahead in voice quality a comparison is laughable.


You were evaluating the liveliness and "fullness" from 300Hz - 3000Hz.  Think about what you are implying.  You are honestly comparing that to what is typically 50Hz - 7KHz, often with much better SNR, if not even wider bandwidth? 

If people have qualms with the concept of directivity, I suggest they turn their fuses by 180 degrees. If they can‘t hear a difference, two options are available:

1. get better equipment
2. get better ears