I can think of one location where limited rails *really* matters within audio applications: phono preamp overload. And there's better ways through input clamping to avoid that (IMO).
It is what the acoustical source emanates......
That´s the measurement part of the problem and in fact, when there exists no analytical solution, it is just an approximation to reality.
Sure, but in which way would that be of relevance?
The fact that quite diverging sound fields are nevertheless able to evoke very similar listening impressions is the foundation of the two channel reproduction.
This topic is related to our discussion in the "CD transport thread" illustrates one of the reasons why a mechanistic approach so often fails.
Did i really question that?
Nice rant, but i didn´t say that "stereo ... not capable of a realistic illusion of place and space...."
Instead i only responded to Chris719´s assertion that something like
"the best" does not exist in the audio field.
And from a technical (mechanistic) point of view, two channel stereophonic reproduction _is_ broken, but nevertheless it can work surprisingly well, but that depends strongly on "features" of the listeners.
Therefore it is quite silly to joke about preferences of individuals that might be - from an engineering point of view - inferior compared to other solutions.
Within the framework of "broken right from the beginning" there is room for a variety....
a few years ago dressed for school.... and now... oldest with their mom.
mom speaks little English. Girls can now read, write and speak fluently in English.
I made sure of that.
see them in a week.... flying them in from Kathmandu to Bangkok. What a blast of fun they are .... sponges for knowledge. And so innocent and pure in thought. We trade music via a cloud storage (DropBox).
-Richard
Last edited:
a few years ago dressed for school.... and now... oldest with their mom.
mom speaks little English. Girls can now read, write and speak fluently in English.
I made sure of that.
View attachment 571246
View attachment 571247
see them in a week.... flying them in from Kathmandu to Bangkok. What a blast of fun they are .... sponges for knowledge. And so innocent and pure in thought. We trade music via a cloud storage (DropBox).
-Richard
Chapeau Richard!
Jan
Wish I could say the same about me.
(knew I shouldn't have clicked the top image, put me down for another half hour of self-lashing)
Just got back from our annual Dutch X-Fi audio show. Ran into Joachim Gerhard, showing off his new elegant speaker, the 'Fortschritt' (Progress). Not only elegant-looking, but sounding very good!
I was also happy to note that his health was quite alright again and he was brimming with plans as before!
He also showed me a new phono preamp fed by one of my early SilentSwitcher prototypes; he was very happy with it 'no hum, no noise, great sound, easy to use and compact. What do I do with all those superfluous transformers'?
Jan
I was also happy to note that his health was quite alright again and he was brimming with plans as before!
He also showed me a new phono preamp fed by one of my early SilentSwitcher prototypes; he was very happy with it 'no hum, no noise, great sound, easy to use and compact. What do I do with all those superfluous transformers'?
Jan
You guys talk about bias and being above it all the time. This chart sums up that it would be superhuman to rise above biases and be totally objective: You Can't Always Trust Your Own Thoughts, And This Terrifying Chart Shows Why | Huffington Post
I am aware I have biases and try to work past those I know but still I'm sure it has cost me in both money and interpersonal benefit to have biases I don't know how to identify. It would be much easier if HiFi biases were all that mattered.
I am aware I have biases and try to work past those I know but still I'm sure it has cost me in both money and interpersonal benefit to have biases I don't know how to identify. It would be much easier if HiFi biases were all that mattered.
Demian,
Being interested in these matters for many years, what always gets me is that most people are not aware of it, and you can't really explain or convince them, because it goes so against the grain of what you think you are.
To become aware of it is a long and painful process, and even then, it does not mean you can lick it.
In the end it is a matter of accepting your limitations while still feeling you're an ok guy (or gall).
Jan
Being interested in these matters for many years, what always gets me is that most people are not aware of it, and you can't really explain or convince them, because it goes so against the grain of what you think you are.
To become aware of it is a long and painful process, and even then, it does not mean you can lick it.
In the end it is a matter of accepting your limitations while still feeling you're an ok guy (or gall).
Jan
Usually it's the sound in the room. I does have to be produced by something. But just saying "It what the source emanates" doesn't tell us much. Reflections, diffraction, directivity?
If you don't know, then it going to take a lot of explaining.
You said stereo is broken. What on earth could that mean? Did you mean that it's broken, but it does what it is suppose to do? Is it broken, or does it work?
A smart man I once worked for told me..... the more time you put into a subject - the less time put into some other subject(s) area. One can specialize but at the expense of knowing much less about other subjects. We can become very narrow in our knowledge. So while you become every good in one area, it is always at the expense of learning about other areas. And, sometimes this shows to others more clearly than to yourself.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Everything always shows more clearly to others than to yourself - that's the whole point
Jan
We are discussing about the features of a original sound field, right?
The acoustical source (for example an acoustical instrument or voice) emanates sound in a certain way, usually with frequency dependent directivity, frequency dependent waveforms and so on. These waves, before hitting any boundaries in the room constitute the original sound field of the source.
If you don't know, then it going to take a lot of explaining.
Might be, but we are discussing a specific topic. If the reproduced sound field is exactly the same as the original sound field, why would it be of relevance?
Pano, if you drop the parts of my post that contains the explanation, it gets difficult...
Please reread my last post; i was talking about the problems of a mechanistic approach, because from a technical point of view, reproduction with two discrete loudspeaker channels _is_ broken, because radically different from the original.
It´s only the consideration of listeners with certain capabilities, which are seperated in properties most listeners share (for example most humans share the ability to perceive a virtual sound source in the middle if both channels are reproducing the same signal; correct positioning provided) and others strongly depending on individual abilities (for example to perceive a depth of image depends on experience as the inventors of stereo already noticed around 1930), that makes this work .
Therefore i wrote that one of the reasons why the mechanistic approach to perceived quality so often fails, because it so oftne doesn´t take into account these individual differences.....
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to accept not to be ok ? Makes acknowledging limitations minor bumps in the road.
(Similar to growing a giant fat a.., mine already requires an airplane seat with more width. That terminal is also not going away any time soon, minus one fatal front or rear ending)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.