Actually not really, I have done that a billion times.
So that kind of homework has already been done and is over.
Just connecting random stuff in a very particular, niche, anecdotal and individual case doesn't proof anything.
In fact, you can barely call it a experiment.
Even less so when fundamental physics (incl psycho-acoustics and the like) and maths are not being taken into the equation (pardon the pun).
The two always go hand-in-hand.
Even these kind of discussions are just totally old and stale and this point.
I have seen them now for decades.
But apparently people still seem to find a need to revive the ashes from a horse that has been butchered to nothing but emptiness.
Btw, I totally don't care or judge what makes people happy and believe.
Because we literally all do.
But just keep that on a personal believing level please and leave out "the science", otherwise it becomes very desperate very quickly.
Just enjoy whatever you're experiencing, no explanation needed.
"that kind"-)
In the meantime, I assume that you wouldn't even know where to attach these connections;-)
I know this function exists, absolutely not a fan of it because these days it seems it's just a quick fix or even an excuse for some people to actually just ignore instead of either trying to communicate or take their responsibility to come with proper arguments and/or references/resources (in some cases none at all).
Their only way of debating seems to be just by saying everyone is dumb/stupid or just to get personal and snarky and therefor ignore everyone who seems to be not in line with their "opinion".
Neither of those are a very mature way of responding and pretty disrespectful in my opinion.
The sad part is that is looks like it's becoming more and more common these days and apparently even be totally tolerated?
One could say that. However, there are certainly variables that are rarely if ever measured and possibly frequently ignored altogether. For example, I was just looking at a very low distortion and noise, class A amplifier project in the forum which is claimed to be designed with the intention (among other things) of making the speakers virtually disappear, to make the sound seem to be coming from around the speakers. How does one measure for that? Moreover, what design variables control for it? I have a suspicion of what to measure to check for correlation, but so far looks like nobody in the thread has thought to try it.
Last edited:
I'm not referring to all those other devices / products you mentioned when I say "solved problem". Only audio amplifiers.
@Markw4,
to the posting #210:
Please share the link with us, which thread is it exactly?
No error-free (caution: question of definition!) amplifier can work the miracle you describe.
How phantom sound sources are formed (and that's what this thread is all about) is actually crystal clear and shouldn't really be brought up in this thread - that's another area.
It goes beyond the intention of this thread in every respect.
regards,
HBt.
to the posting #210:
Please share the link with us, which thread is it exactly?
No error-free (caution: question of definition!) amplifier can work the miracle you describe.
How phantom sound sources are formed (and that's what this thread is all about) is actually crystal clear and shouldn't really be brought up in this thread - that's another area.
It goes beyond the intention of this thread in every respect.
regards,
HBt.
Let's simply turn the page,
and ask ourselves what has not yet been solved - what has not yet been solved?
You can also ask differently:
what should be solved in priciple?
Resolved can also mean that an agreement has been reached, that there is a consensus.
Here you have me on the hook. Please feel free to express your suspicions. It could well be that we agree on the cause of this point.
Ahem, looks that my design is in question.
You are right in one thing and that is there doesn’t exist amplifier that could make every loudspeakers to “disappear”. Loudspeakers must exhibit that capability to some extent, and a “proper” amplifier will enable them to shine and really “doesn’t exist”. It’s not a miracle. Point source loudspeakers are preferred (coaxials, full range, electrostatics).
When you have an amplifier like the superb Benchmark model AHB2 as an example, I'd call that a solution to the amplifier problem. Trying to make a better one would not provide more audible benefit. I do not own one nor do I have any financial or other involvement in the company, so feelings are not involved in making that statement. It's merely an observation on my part, nothing more. Certainly would like (a feeling) to own one of those amplifiers, though, but they're priced beyond my audio budget ceiling.
More precisely: look for a simple SE, because Classe A is also understood to include push-pull concepts - which are highly imprecise in terms of audio. However, they basically sound like a "Spanish wall" in the sound image, because the half-waves are amplified differently with different amplifier rails;-)
I withdraw my question, because I can understand you - and dancing around the definitions of words or terms is absolutely counterproductive, especially since each of us here on this board has a different mother tongue to that of our counterpart.
I completely agree with you on what I think I understand.
#
The interaction between a sound transducer and its driver, the amplifier, was already mentioned above.
So there is no point of contention or even a conflict. You are absolutely right in what you have said. Maybe Markw4 can also cross that bridge and we don't just reach a consensus.
I completely agree with you on what I think I understand.
#
The interaction between a sound transducer and its driver, the amplifier, was already mentioned above.
So there is no point of contention or even a conflict. You are absolutely right in what you have said. Maybe Markw4 can also cross that bridge and we don't just reach a consensus.