John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess 3D in audio refer to width, height and depth of the placement of instruments on the stage.

Well, your guess is wrong. Using two sources, you can locate an object (visually, acoustically, whatever) left-right and front back. About height... (20ft. or 3ft.) no way, unless "height" has a different meaning for the use of high end audio.

And BTW, if you want to be taken seriously, "guessing" is anyway not a good way to proceed.
 
IOW, you don't actually know any physics, but feel capable of expounding on the subject?

Dunno how you got that from what I said. More evidence that your perceptual processes are subject to significant distortion I suggest. What do my feelings have to do with the matter?

Or can you actually set up and solve a basic Schroedinger equation for a physical system?

Nope, unless it was the 'electron in a box' I was taught at undergrad level and I reckon I'd be seriously rusty at that. Why would that inability be in any way relevant?
 
Speakers, depending on construction, have pretty strange characteristics of radiated power vs. frequency and both vertical and horizontal angle difference from axis. This, together with reflections, makes an impression of 3D localization.

So when I change a component in my system and the image shifts to a lower or higher focal point, or the soundstage depth/width changes, whether it is forward or behind the speaker face shifts, are you saying that the speakers cause this to happen, when they have not changed or repositioned?
 
Speakers, depending on construction, have pretty strange characteristics of radiated power vs. frequency and both vertical and horizontal angle difference from axis. This, together with reflections, makes an impression of 3D localization.

Possible, but last time I've checked stereo recordings do not hold 3D information. What you are talking about are artifacts that helps the brain fool itself. The brain is adding something that was never there.
 
Modern physics most certainly does avoid those issues which is one of the reasons its in such a parlous state (just read Smolin).


Physics does not, however, many physicists do.


One of my favourite quotes in the realm of physics is from one of the founders of QM, Erwin Schroedinger. Its worth repeating here:

The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.


It seems that enlightened Yogis and Buddhists would agree that subject and object are only one.
 
Why would that inability be in any way relevant?

Because you're expounding on something about which you have little knowledge?

I know more about, say, genetics than the Average Joe, but there's no way on a forum devoted to garage bioscience where there are real experts that I'd try telling people about what genetics does and doesn't say, and quote-mining James Watson. But that's just me, feel free to expound, there's no rules against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.