Douglas_schroeder wrote,
"I'm not impressed with devices and gimmicks which are not in the signal path and seemingly have little purpose toward the signal (aside from sensible room tuning devices like sound panels and bass traps, etc.). They are largely a waste of money and time - and yes, I have done demo of many of them. I dont own them because they wasted my time for pissy results. I do not review them typically because they are a waste of time and effort relative to the direct changes one can make within the signal path. In that respect I see little wisdom in working with extraneous tweaks when one can alter the sound directly through things like cables. IMO, a Bybee filter has a lot more going for it in terms of change of a rig's sound than a LessLoss Blackbody or the Synergistic Research A.R.T. system."
You might consider cutting the Synergistic Research tiny little bowls some slack as they are clearly, well, apparently affecting room acoustics. Can't blame you one bit with respect to the Lessloss Blackbody, though. Obviously a work of the devil. Same goes for the Schumann Frequency Generator, Mpingo disc, deionizers, demagnetizers, Rainbow Foil, SteinMusic Harmonizer, Tiny Little Crystals on the wall and the Red X Coordinate Pen, not to mention Frank Tchang's tiny little bowls which are even tinier than the A.R.T. bowls, if you can believe that. :-) |
Sabai wrote,
"But I can speculate. Electrons travel awfully fast through cables. And as they travel through a series of cables they are being organized in a unique way through each unique cable -- and through each unique "tweak". It is the combined effects of this multiple-stage organizing of electrons that produce very special results. This is where the word synergy enters the picture. From my way of thinking, having experienced this first-hand, the shortest path is irrelevant in the search for better sound through series cabling. There is virtually no difference in how long it takes for the current to pass through a short signal path versus a long signal path. And that time difference is not a deciding factor when it comes to the issue of sonic synergy. This is an issue that is cable-dependent and "tweak"-dependent -- not an issue that is "length of signal path"-dependent."
Just for the record, the velocity of electrons through audio cables, the drift velocity, is actually extremely slow, on the order of one meter per 12 hours! On the other hand, the electromagnetic wave - the musical signal travelling through audio cables - travels at a high percentage of the speed of light.
Also for the record, Shakti Hallographs are actually IN the signal path, assuming one considers reflected acoustic waves in the room that reach the ear to be part of the Signal Path. Ditto for Tube Traps, Corner Tunes, Skyline and other diffusers, Sonex and such. LessLoss Blackbody, Tice Clock and Schumann low frequency (7.8 Hz) generator are much better examples of devices that most folks would deem NOT to be in the signal path. |
Onhwy61 wrote,
"Some people fall outside the curve because they are brilliant
outsiders blazing paths into the unknown. But for every person like that
there are probably a thousand who are just oddballs. I honestly don't know
where Sabai falls. I applaud him for his willingness to share, yet at the
same time some of the things he says sound like an elaborate inside joke.
Not all that different than the post by the guy selling the over the telephone
test tones."
Most folks would probably consider tiny little bowls that improve bass
frequencies, 7.8 Hz frequency generators, the Red X Coordinate Pen, LP
demagnetizers, the Quantum Clip, Tourmaline Gun, liquid cables, CD edge
bevelers, directional fuses and Rainbow Foil to be elaborate jokes or cruel
hoaxes foisted on gullible audiophiles. Side note: the telephone thing does
not involve test tones.
GK |
Onhwy61 wrote,
"My apologies for misdescribing the telephone thing. Although I note you are careful not to say it wasn't a joke."
- Ok, I'll say it. It's not a joke. It's as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthetic.
:-)
GK |
Kijanki wrote,
"Geoffkait, electrons don't travel at all - they vibrate standing in place since we're dealing with AC signals."
I was obviously referring to audio cables, not A/C cables. Electron Drift Velocity is on the order of 1 mm/hr.
Cheers |
Sabai wrote,
"geoffkait, you stated, "I honestly don't know where Sabai falls." Frankly, I don't care where I "fall". Whoever wants to pigeon-hole me can go right ahead."
I did not make that statement. You must be thinking of someone else.
Cheers, GK |
Sabai wrote,
"Geoffkait,
To keep things simple, when referring to "in the signal path" I
am talking about whatever is actually connected to the circuitry of the
system."
I suspect that might makes things a little too simple. Of course it all
depends how one defines "signal
path" I think a more accurate definition, and one that is probably
acceptable even to most naysayers, is the signal path is chain of source
(CD, LP, etc.), electronics, cables and speakers as well as the acoustic
waves that arrive at the listener's ears from the speakers and from room
walls, etc.
For example, I suspect most people would agree that CD tweaks such as
cleaning fluids and the Green Pen are IN the signal path. And most people,
even naysayers, would probably not dispute the room acoustics' effects on
the sound. So, i think we should agree that room acoustics are in the
signal path.
Where I think the definition of "signal path" diverges is
when we discuss devices or tweaks that don't appear to influence the
"electronic signal path" OR the acoustic portion of the signal
path. Isn't that the definition of a controversial tweak? That is why I would
put isolation devices, dampers, diffusers, absorbers, tiny little bowls, tube
traps and Hallographs IN the signal path, even CD treatments, cryogenics,
cable wraps and parallel line purifiers.
But certain (controversial) tweaks like SteinMusic Harmonizer, crystals, the
Intelligent Chip, Acoustic Revive Schumann Frequency Generator,
deionizers and demagnetizers and LessLoss Blackbody seem to fall
somewhere in No Man's Land, difficult to say for sure whether they're in or
out. Still others are clearly not in the signal path - Rainbow Foil, Clever
Clock, Red X Pen, the telephone thing, things of that nature.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica |
Douglas_schroeder wrote (in 2004)
"I'm guessing no one's seen this kind of response to this question yet.
I'm 42, pastor, and I intentionally have not purchased as high end a system as I'd like; I give very sacrificially to the Lord. I'm investing in the "etherial sound sytem" I will one day enjoy."
One assumes you finally sacrificed sufficiently to be able to enjoy that ethereal sound system you've been lusting after all those years. |
Mapman wrote,
"Wires/power cords and many other esoteric tweaks seldom provide much of anything in terms of specifications or other measurable attributes that can be used to make an educated decision."
That is SO funny. If you ever bothered to get up out of that Lazy Boy and take a look around, you might find that things have changed since the 1980s. :-) All major brands of audiophile cables and power cords, Cardas, Audioquest, Nordost, to name a few of the big boys, provide specs for their products. Power cords are required to Meet certain standards and specifications. Only a backsliding mossback would lump wires and cables in with esoteric tweaks. Besides, any yutz with ears knows that specs are meaningless. For anything. Welcome to the next century. :-) |
Sabai, I acquired an Audio Pulse Model One, a digital time delay system that had three (3) sets of outputs (L and R). The user could select among a small club, a medium size auditorium or large concert hall. Each set of channels, front, side, rear, output the reverberant decay information associated with the size of venue selected. Separate amplifiers and speakers were necessary for the full system; however, inexpensive amplifiers and speakers could be and were used since the Audio Pulse Model One produced "non-coherent signals" and only up to 8 kHz for the ambient information channels. This time delay system, with all three sets of ambient channels, was capable of producing a soundstage as big as Kansas, much larger than the room, perhaps 30 feet deep in some cases. Note, the volume of the ambient channels relative to the primary speakers was much lower so as not draw attention to themselves.
It was later on that I discovered how much information is actually buried in recordings, that even very large and expensive systems fail to reproduce, and what was required to extract that buried information for 2 channel stereo. The real ambient information was there all along, we just couldn't hear it! |
Mapman wrote,
"Each of us can obviously only assess relative to what each of us have actually heard."
Yes! That's the whole problem in a nutshell.
Cheers |
On the subject of speaker placement and holographic image, one thing worth mentioning is that most speakers are set too far apart. I suppose many folks assume they will be able to obtain a wider soundstage do they frequently place the speakers rather far apart and toe them in as well. When I set up the speakers according to the XLO Test CD, specifically the Out of Phase track, I found, curiously enough, that the speakers presented a much more solid, deeper and wider soundstage placed about four (4) feet from each other, as opposed to say six feet - and with no toe in. XLO Test CD Test CD cautions that most speakers are placed to far apart. Obviously, the ideal distance for a given pair of speakers depends on at least a few factors. The ideal distance cannot necessarily be found by ear because you can easily wind up with a local maximum, not the real maximum. |
Sebrof, some folks need a physic, not physics.
Tootles |
Sabai wrote,
"I have upwards of 20 Bybee products in my system and upwards of 20 other "tweaks" in my system. My system would not exist without Bybee products. I recently added a pair of Combak Harmonix MIC Enacoms to the system and they are a wonderful product. But there is nothing I know of that could substitute for most of the Bybee products that I have in my system."
Have you tried the WA Quantum Chips from Germany? They're all the rage.
Link to WA Quantum Chips at:
http://www.kempelektroniks.com/Accessoires/WA-Quantum-Chips-(1).aspx
Back on the subject of information retrieval, ever try any of the Belt products? |
Mapman wrote,
"mbl set up really well are hard to best in the holography dept."
I heard them at the Vegas Show, actually I couldn't help but hear them as the Mbl room was next door to the room I was in. I did visit the Mbl room, which had the complete Mbl system including amps the size of Volkswagons but I thought the system sounded pretty irritating. |
So there you have it. The Gardeners vs the Couch Potatoes.
[Riding in a car for the first time]
Chance the Gardener: "This is just like television, only you can see much further". - from the movie, Being There |
I was one of the very first to employ cryogenics on a wide range of audio related items, that was 15 years ago. I discovered the mechanism by which the (Quantum) Intelligent Chip works 7 years ago. I invented a six degree of freedom sub-Hertz vibration isolation stand 15 years ago. I started using Belt tweaks 10 years ago. I came out with the (Quantum) Clever Little Clock, based on Belt concepts, 6 years ago. May Belt and i wrote the explanation for how the clock works 3 years ago. My Brilliant Pebbles suite of crystal based devices was the first audio product to address a wide range of room and system issues. That was 8 years ago. Blue Meanies, also Quantum in nature, were introduced last year. You might as well lock me up and throw away the key. |
Mapman wrote,
"Personally, as one who seeks perfection in my home audio sound (yet knows that is not likely to happen 100%) I tend to want to well exceed the 80/20 rule when it comes to home audio matters. I would say I want my rig to achieve 90% or better of what is possible in theory. Some tweaking will be necessary to get that but realizing the fundamentals has a good chance of putting one in the game based on the Pareto Principle.. "
You appear to assume in advance what 100% sounds like, so it would be rather difficult to say you have achieved 80 or 90%, or whatever. Besides, there is no consensus for what constitutes "what is possible in theory," as you put it. Any limit or ceiling or percentage is strictly artificial or imagined. The only thing you can logically conclude is that you've gotten your system to sound as good as it sounds to you.
Cheers |
Csontos wrote,
"You mean Psychic, don't you?"
I knew you were going to say that. |
Chadeffect wrote,
"I guess now we start discussing the more controversial quantum tweaks. I have experienced very strange effects with the few I have tried. PWB foils being the oddest. Whether they were working on me, the system or both!"
The sort of discussion you're referring to might be a little too much for the more squeamish in the group. But just to get it out of the way, here are a few of my fav controversial quantum tweaks. They are guaranteed to get any self respecting skeptic's panties in a bunch. None of these tweaks are expensive, one is even free. Intelligent Chip, PWB Red X Coordinate Pen, Photos in the Freezer Tweak (free), the new WA Quantum Chips from Germany, Teleportation Tweak, and PWB Cream Electret.
Geoff Kait
machina dynamica |
(Geoff' quote)"I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception, as opposed to anything that has a DIRECT effect on the audio signal ANYWHERE in the system - the power provided at the wall, cables or electronics, or the acoustic waves in the room. You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room."
Sebrof asked,
"Geoff - How did you come to this realization, IOW why do you believe this is so?"
Experimentation, the foundation of scientific discovery. |
Chadeffect wrote,
"Like many here I have a slight knowledge of quantum theories. I'm not sure how up to date I am, but most of my reading was done 8 years ago now I guess."
It might be helpful to forget almost everything you learned about quantum physics.
"I know of most of the products you mention in your last post. I have not tried them...yet! As I mentioned earlier I am interested in trying the WA quantum chip."
Yeah, me, too. I have some on the way from the US distributor.
"My experience with the PWBELT foils was most strange and dare I say unnerving? The effect was like no other tweak experience I have has. I tried to theorise what could cause the effect. Maybe putting the foil on the DACs chips was damping them?..."
The foils are not dampers or RFI/EMI absorbers or anything like that. An over-simplified explanation for PWB products would be "mind-matter interaction" - i.e., how the subconscious or conscious mind is affected by certain Objects or Images or Information in the immediate surroundings and, in some cases, at long distance.
"Which one of the mentioned tweaks would you recommend 1st?"
It's not that easy to chose a favorite. :-)
GK |
Learsfool, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. As a professional musician (French horn) in a major orchestra, do you think that sitting in the orchestra in close proximity to all of the other musicians night after night in any way damages your hearing? The reason I ask is I once visited another professional musician in a major orchestra (oboe) who happened to have one of the worst sounding systems I ever had the misfortune to hear. Thanks in advance. |
Mapman wrote,
"Again, to me, anything that changes the sound is a tweak. Changing DAC, amp, IC, power source are all tweaks to help achieve a desired goal. But not all tweaks are created equal some do nothing except change the way the user thinks, perhaps the mind matter interaction that Geoff is so fond of touting."
I'm afraid you're confusing tweaks with modifications or even upgrading components. Have you ever considered it might be time to change the way you think. Time to throw away all those McGuffey Readers and high school physics books.
Mapman also wrote,
"I also have no doubt that placing certain objects close to electronic circuits may very well have an effect."
Nice strawman argument but that is NOT what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception, as opposed to anything that has a DIRECT effect on the audio signal ANYWHERE in the system - the power provided at the wall, cables or electronics, or the acoustic waves in the room. You can't hear the sound you worked so hard to get, the sound that's actually there in the room, because your sensory perception is hurt by the objects, patterns, images, and information - books, CDs, DVDs, telephone books, etc. - in the room. What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers. Relatively speaking, of course. You're used to it, so you believe that everything is as it should be. This is the big secret! Lol
"It's what I chose to believe". - Dr. Shaw in the movie, Prometheus |
Mapman wrote,
"My true hope is that when I can forget what I know and replace that with whatever it is that Geof is going to teach me, I can get better sound for less via mind matter interaction rather than than my current cash/vendor approach."
Yeah, yeah... if a mind is too open the brain will just spill out onto the floor.
:-) |
Geoff Kait wrote,
" I'm talking about objects, images and information that change your sensory perception."
And Mapman responded with,
"You mean like you?"
Good one. You must have had your Wheaties this morning.
:-) |
So, tell me, anyone have any luck, Holographic Sound wise, using acoustic resonators? You know, Tchang tiny little bowl Acoustic Resonators, or his really tiny Sugar Cubes, Synergistic Research ARTS system, or the other newer copycat metal bowls from Holland. I suppose I'd include Schumann Frequency Generators, why not?, and maybe even the SteinMusic Harmonizer. Quartz stones from Acoustic Revive. There's also a large expensive bowl or bell that was reviewed recently that should probably be included, if for no other reason than to see the reaction, the name escapes me. How about tube traps? Beer Bottles?
Geoff Kait
Www.machinadynamica.com |
While we're on the subject of things that go bump in the night and ideas that might be construed as delusional, let me draw your attention to the Red X Coordinate Pen for a moment. This review of the Belt's Red X Coordinate Pen appeared in Positive Feedback. Enjoy!
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/beltpen.htm
In case you missed it, Cream Electret, another Beltian product based on the premise that our hearing acuity is degraded by certain objects, images and information/media, was reviewed recently in both Stereophile Magazine and Enjoy the Music.
Cheerio |
Mapman wrote,
"There are some people who believe the heavens revolve around the earth. That's pretty obvious right? Just look at at the sun (with filters) or night sky...."
At the center of almost every galaxy, including our own, there is an enormous Black Hole with the mass of a billion suns.
That's pretty obvious, right? |
Mapman wrote,
"Seriously though, the Mars rover sent back pics recently of what appear to be sedimentary rocks formed by liquid flow (likely water) on the surface of Mars. Now that really is big in terms of increasing probability of life on Mars in the past and outside of earth in general! Can't wait to learn what is discovered there next....."
I don't see what all the excitement is about. I'm serious. Water on Mars, no water on Mars, what's the difference? Hard to get excited about the space program, if you ask me. But it did have its moments, I'll give it that much. Audio is much more fun anyway. AND way more mysterious than a bunch of rocks. lol |
Mapman, take a deep breath. People have been getting all worked up about the possibility of life on Mars for, what, 200 years? Not very much different than speculating about UFOs and the possibility of life on other worlds. For the most part it's the stuff dreams and science fiction (e.g., the recent movie Prometheus) are made of. Not that's there's anything wrong with dreams, or science fiction, or wondering where we came from or What it All Means. By most accounts, including NASA, Mars is simply too small to have much of an atmosphere of any kind, and the one it does have is primarily carbon dioxide. Mars has much more in common with our Moon than Earth. Not a very promising scenario IMO for supporting life other than perhaps bacteria. |
What we have here is failure to communicate. Do you not think I realize my statements are new and provocative? Do you think I have not seen the same knee jerk reactions many times in the past. Grown men who have been in this hobby develop their own belief systems based on what they experience and to a certain extent what they read. Obviously we do not all reach the conclusions about a variety of things, that's just how things are. The reason why there is such *polarization* on a number of subjects in this hobby, e.g., cables, fuses, directionality of wire, cryogenics as well as the ones related to Belt products, or my products for that matter, and mind matter interaction is most likely due to the simple fact that we believe what we chose to believe. In addition, there does seem to be a very strong resistance to any idea that is not "normal". It's ironic that the subject of this thread, Holographic Sound, is itself controversial. Hel-looo! Most people have never really heard Holographic Sound. Many people in the industry including some senior reviewers either minimize its importance or deny its existence.
Sabai, The Red X Coordinate Pen has no relation *whatsoever* to any pens used for CDs, green, black, whatever, that you might be familiar with. It is nothing so, uh, mundane. The Red X Pen is an demonstration of some of the concept I've been try to get across that seems to have fallen on deaf ears, or closed ears - that the sound you hear is easily influenced by phenomena that have nothing whatsoever to do with the power to the wall, the audio signal anywhere in system, or the acoustic waves in the room...or how you hook your cable together! You completely missed the point of my posting the review of the Red X Pen and its significance to this discussion. As I said, we believe what we chose to believe. Sabai, if you don't object too much to my saying so, it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presently unusual ideas. Cables in series, indeed. Hel-loooo! Lol
Cheers, everyone
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We Do Artificial Atoms Right |
Sabai wrote,
"Let's examine carefully Geoffkait's statement: "What you are hearing is a distorted, compressed, noisy facsimile of what is actually coming from the speakers."
Distorted by what?
Compressed by what?
A facsimile that comes from what source?
Geoffkait's statement is what I would call GOBBLEDYGOOK. Plain and simple. Nonsense Talk."
Sabai, the reason the sound is (relatively) distorted and compressed and noisy is because of the influence of the immediate environment on your sense of hearing. Somewhat analogous to radio frequency interference affecting the performance of a sensitive receiver. But everything is relative so I can certainly understand your objection to someone saying the sound of your system is not all that you think it is. Let me give you some examples. If you remove all CDs from the room you should notice the sound improves quite a bit. That is because the CDs (media) themselves are bad for the sound. So are LPs, DVDs, cassettes. This is an example of how things in the immediate environment affect the sound you hear.
More examples: If you remove all *unused* components and speakers and cables from the room, if they are just lying around, you should notice that the sound gets a lot better. That's because those items are inherently bad for the sound. If you have any flowers or plants in the room, remove them and you will find the sound improves. If you have magazines and books In the room, take them out of the room. Same with all batteries. These are some common examples of what I'm referring to. There are many others.
Cheers |
Tom wrote,
"Most everything you mentioned are passive radiators that re transmit energy in the physical and acoustic environment. Nothing new to grasp there. When you remove a potted plant in clay or brass from a room and you say there is a net gain in perception , is that gain because the inorganic material or the organic material was removed from that area?"
Cables are passive radiators? Interesting. A preamp or amp is a passive radiator? A cassette or book or LP is a passive radiator? An unused speaker IS a passive radiator but that's not the characteristic that is germane to the mechanism I'm referring to. Any more than saying that a telephone in the room hurts the sound because the tiny speaker in the phone acts as a passive radiator.
I'm not really sure why the sound improves when taking plants or flowers out of the room, perhaps because we are inclined to "prefer" them in their natural state - in the ground. |
Bryon wrote,
"This isn't an explanation. It's merely a restatement of the same idea.
You are a puzzle, Geoff. You are obviously intelligent, and you seem to understand how you are perceived. Yet you persist in being evasive when asked direct questions. It is partly for that reason that, in the past, I concluded that you don't really believe the things you say."
Where have I been evasive? Just show me where I have evaded a direct question. You can't even ask a direct question yourself. Just posturing, as usual.
"But lately I've begun to doubt that conclusion. It's become increasingly clear to me that you may actually believe the things you say."
I suspect you are just a troll, don't worry, I don't let it bother me too much. So, you think I believe the things I say, or you don't think I believe the things I say, which is it? i wish you'd make up your mind. Lol
"But if you do, then why be evasive? Why not answer questions directly, thoroughly, and sincerely? IMO, that would silence a significant fraction of your detractors, including this one."
Who are you, the moderator all of a sudden? I'm pretty sure noone here is going to change their thinking based on what I say, especially you. Lol
Sincerely, Geoff |
Tom wrote,
"Single speaker demo rooms are the only way to audition speakers without undue influence. Empty metal containers with electronic circuitry inside are also passive radiators even when not plugged in. Audio furniture tv monitors all building materials are passive radiators. As you know everything makes a difference..for better or worse is amatter of one's own perception or not."
Not to belabor the point any more than necessary, for the sake of argument let's confine the items to those that cannot be construed as "passive radiators" - LPs, cables, CDs in paper or plastic sleeves (as opposed to jewel boxes), books, magazines, newspapers, telephone books, plants, flowers. If removing any or all of those items from the room improves the sound then the passive radiator theory cannot be the explanation.
Geoff |
Donjr wrote,
"I will not pretend to understand what it's doing but it's doing."
That's the ubiquitous line almost all reviewers use when reporting on tweaks with, uh, difficult or preposterous sounding explanations. Perhaps, Mapman would like to chime in on how it works. As I recall his BS Detector didn't go off on the SteinMusic Harmonizer. |
Al wrote,
"Thanks very much, Mapman. Your assumption is correct -- I have never had an affiliation with anyone or any organization in the audio industry. Nor with any consumer product, for that matter. My background is in defense electronics."
Cool, my background is defense electronics, too. Small world, ain't it?
"Regarding various statements that have been made by others to the effect that opinions about tweaks are invalid unless the particular tweaks have been tried: While opinions can and will legitimately differ, and widely, about where to draw the line, I would submit that there must be SOME finite limit to the degree of apparent absurdity of a tweak, beyond which it can be rejected a priori."
If what you propose were true, i.e., that absurd or preposterous tweaks or ideas should be rejected based simply on "appearances" there would be no black holes or black hole theory, no faster than sound flight, no space travel, no quantum mechanics, no relativity theory. We can always find people that object to just about any issue in audio you. An come up with. Taking the Teleportation Tweak, the Red X Coordinate Pen and the Photos in the Freezer Tweak, I'd say there actually is no limit to how absurd a tweak might appear. All you kids out there, don't try this at home. Stay in school. Lol
"IMO, a lot of the tweaks that have been mentioned and/or linked to in this thread, especially in the recent parts of the thread, exceed any such limits that are conceivably within reason. And, frankly, I doubt that anything constructive can result from discussion of them, which is why I haven't posted in this thread in recent days."
And that, Al, is why they are *controversial*. What brings you back, the controversy? Lol |
Tom wrote,
"When the concert hall is full and there are not enough hangars in the cloak room and the audience takes their wraps to their seats with them this passive device now on their laps changes the time and energy response within the hall. These additional passive devices were added to the acoustic volume of the hall and are not part of the collective displacement of the hall patrons as intended by the acoustic designer. They are passive and displace air with various forms of reactive mass.
but they are not passive radiators. By your new re-definition everything can be considered a Passive Device. But I'm ahead of you. The Red X Coordinate Pen, the reason I keep mentioning it, actually demonstrates that it is the *words* and other *information* contained in media that affect us. Thus, when you remove books, cassettes, newspapers, telephone books, etc. from the room and the sound improves it is not because the objects are passive radiators or even passive devices, it's because the words and data are the problem. it's why I used the word INFORMATION earlier. If you see what I mean.
You probably aren't familiar with the Japanese fellow who found that placing calming message in water result in beautiful well-formed crystals when the water is frozen but that messages that are negative such as I hate you result in ugly ill-formed crystals. I thought everyone heard about that. It's all over YouTube.
Geoff |
Sabai wrote,
"My "ideas" about holographic sound are unusual? They are not "my ideas". They are not "ideas" at all. Holographic sound is not an "idea". It is a fact. What do you mean when you say holographic sound is "unusual"? "
Sabai, please read my post again as that is not what I said all. I said that your idea of connecting cables in series was unusual, not that the idea of holographic sound was unusual. I would be the last person to deny that holographic sound is achievable or unusual as a concept.
Cheers |
Sabai wrote,
"I have not heard of a single "person in the industry" or a single "senior reviewer" who minimizes the importance or denies the existence of "holographic sound".
I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject. I have not seen a single buffalo out in my yard today. Lol |
Sabai wrote,
"Bryoncunningham,
Once again, you have nailed Geoffkait to the wall so perfectly that I could not have put this any better. Bravo."
I'm getting this image of Pontius Pilate, for some strange reason.
:-) |
Back to mind-matter interaction for a moment, since there's not much floating around the Internet that informs one what the term means. VENDOR ALERT - I sell the Mind Lamp. Q word alert, the Mind Lamp operates quantum mechanically. The web site below provides some insight to some of the ideas I have been trying to get across. Mind-matter interaction works both ways.
http://www.mind-lamp.com/ |
Learsfool wrote,
"Judging someone's ears by the quality of their system is silly. Most musicians do not make enough money to afford a top of the line high end audio system. My own system is certainly on the lower end price-wise for folks in this hobby."
Perhaps you're right, that I should not be too judgemental. As it turns out the professional musician I was referring to is an unusual case. He was a dealer for Cello Speakers and electronics, so his system comprised some of the finest and most expensive components and speakers available. I estimate his system, speakers plus electronics would retail for 200,000 dollars. In addition, he had 10,000 dollars worth of room acoustics treatments installed. I'm pretty sure you can appreciate the irony of my questioning the hearing of professional musicians. If any person cannot obtain good sound from a 200,000 dollar system it's only natural to question his hearing, especially if that person thinks his system actually sounds good.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile axiom
Cheers |
Bryon,
OK, you finally convinced me that you should probably be standing out on a ledge somewhere. I really like reading your diatribes, though, especially when your hair catches fire. I don't know why all trolls can't be as entertaining as you.
Geoff |
Sabai, again, we have failure to communicate. What I originally posted was the following:
"As I said, we believe what we chose to believe. Sabai, if you don't object too much to my saying so, it's ironic and bizarre that you would attack someone who is presenting unusual ideas when you, yourself, are presenting unusual ideas. Cables in series, indeed. Hel-loooo! Lol"
You continue to insist I said Holographic Sound was an unusual idea, but actually I said no such thing. I said connecting cables in series was an unusual idea. Now do you see the irony? One wonders why you are so defensive about your holographic sound. Did you invent it? Lol |
Sabai wrote,
"Is it so difficult to answer my question? What's the mystery? Why can't you give a straight answer to a straight question? In case you did not notice, my question was very simple -- and very straight. In fact, I believe it was not very difficult to understand. Your evasive reply was "I kinda doubt you've heard what all of them have said on the subject". This is not a good enough answer -- with or without the Lol at the end. Why can't you name names? Why can't you give us specific statements that specific people have made? Why can't you put facts in place of evasive replies? I can read English as well as the next person on this thread. I'm waiting. We're waiting."
Clarke Johnsen and Kal Rubinson, senior reviewers/writers at large for Stereophile magazine and Positive Feedback, respectively, to name two industry insiders, have expressed the opinion that obtaining a real, 3D soundstage is either (1) not of great importance overall or (2) not obtainable at all since any 3D soundstage is "artificial" or imaginary (in the mind of the listener). These opinions were expressed over on AA. Lord knows where their statements are archived, but somewhere, no doubt. For the record, I do not agree with those opinions.
Cheers |
Speaking of stereo image and soundstage, and all that jazz, here's an interesting take by John Atkinson, editor Stereophile Magazine. The following paragraphs are excerpted from his article published in 1986.
"So there we have it: a perfect stereo image implies a perfect soundstage. All is rosy in the audiophile garden.
Hmm. A suspicious word, perfect. Where's the catch?
Well, we have only been discussing the interaction between the two loudspeakers and the listener. What about the amplitude-information only, two-channel recording? Where does that come from?
When it comes to recording music, there are two mutually incompatible philosophies. One is to capture as faithfully as possible the acoustic sound produced by a bunch of musicians, in effect treating a performance as an event to be preserved in a documentary manner. The second, which is far more widespread, is to treat the recording itself as the event, the performance, using live sounds purely as ingredients to be mixed and cooked. This, of course, is how all nonclassical recordings are made. The sound of an instrument or singer is picked up with one microphone, and the resultant mono signal, either immediately or at a later mixdown session, is assigned a lateral position in the stereo image with a panpot. As this is a device which by definition produces a ratio of amplitudes between the two channels, it would seem that every recording made this way is a true amplitude-stereo recording, capable of producing a well-defined stereo image.
Do such recordings have a soundstage associated with that image, however?
Sometimes.
When producing such a recording, the producer decides how much and what type of reverberation should be associated with each of the mono sound sources, and also decides where in space that reverberation should be positioned. There is no reason at all why the ambience surrounding, say, a centrally placed lead vocalist, should have any relationship with that around the drums. Or the guitar. Or the synthesizer. And if it doesn't, then the listener doesn't hear a soundstage. Rather, he hears a collage of individual musical events, bearing no spatial relationship to one another." |
Mapman wrote,
"BTW i have a background in designing defense systems as well (digital mapping systems specifically hence my moniker)."
My first job was at Army Map Service in DC, a summer job. Of course Army Map Service eventually evolved into Defense Mapping Agency. I used to run calculations for Lorentz relativity equations on early Freiden calculators in my spare time. The office I was in was mapping the moon. |
I just remembered, when I was at Army Map Service one of my jobs was helping calibrate the collimators for the Swiss imaging system for viewing 3D maps. Holography rules! |
