„CMP framing“ – what the ** you mean ?

[mige0]

Having mercy with all the deeply depressed ESL, OB, TL, (...) lovers that now – that CMP behaviour is debunked - have to realize that what they loved for a long time, being (CMP-) distortion only.

Well – lets see if there is any medicine in the form of :

Hey, lets look at the bright side : its a feature not a bug !
I mean – all those people (me included) simply can't be wrong, can they?

With stating „CMP framing“ instead of „CMP distortion“ ( ) we give it a chance that there *might* be a sonic effect introduced by CMP that *might* be beneficial as well.


LOL



Looking over the fence into „picture reproduction“ we easily realize that not a single foto would make it to our attention without some brush up – at least this is true for all those that are heavily payed for in glossy magazines and pretty books.

One of the „standards“ in picture editing to make a picture looking (at least ) as real as reality, is the use of a tool called „unsharp mask“ - or more profane : „sharpening“.
In short it is cranking up contrast for details - and more specifically – especially exactly between two picture details, in order to set them apart form each other.

This technique is also seen most pronounced in pixel art and comics – where every part of the picture is heavily „framed“, which helps to add depth and palpability to otherwise poor and lifeless sujets.
Playing the game of „unsharp mask“ / contrast well, is definitely an art by itself for any picture post processing, no matter what.


If we now stop and think for a second what all people are so crazy about, we may come to the conclusion that reproduced sound or pictures simply never ever are the real thing and hence may need some means to „better“ convince us / out senses.
So in a way „CMP framing“ might be seen in the same light as „unsharp masking“.

„CMP framing“ adds a specific „distortion“ to sound – as does sharpening (!) with pictures - no question about that.
But CMP behaviour is also pretty special in that it „frames“ any sonic event in time – a pretty unusual behaviour not seen with any „normal“ audio distortion.

At the beginning of any sound there is – after delay time – a kink in the amplitude which expresses into a bunch of high frequency content.
Same is at the end of any sound – when the CMP tail happens. Also CMP' „native FR“ time slot and CMP tail by itself are kinda framing, if seen that way.

So, „CMP framing“ possibly can't be considered being an ideal tool like „unsharp mask“ in audio, but it nevertheless may play a comparable role.


Love my „sleep well lollipop“ ?

Originally Posted by mige0

For what it is worth - enjoy !


http://www.kinotechnik.edis.at/pages...ts_of_View.pdf


Michael

Michael

[mige0]

Originally Posted by dlr

You have got to be kidding. You create a construct you call CMP that somehow is not subject to the well known relationships between an impulse response and all of the other representations that can be derived from it, then state that someone else must "re-prove" the current understanding or essentially disprove your claims of a supposedly "flawed FR concept" based on your conjecture???

At one point I thought that something of benefit might result from this thread and indeed it has for me, but it has nothing to do with this nonsense called CMP. I certainly understand dipoles better, especially how it is manifested in an impulse response with John's input, but this concept called CMP is utter nonsense. It is incumbent on you, the proponent, to prove your case. Nothing of the sort has been presented.

Dave

Hi Dave

I've been sparse at Elias thread as I think CMP tis quite OT there - same as I think it possibly was at Lynn's thread.

Anyway.
I know your position pretty well, but in case of you'd just like to battle a little bit - welcome !

One thing I ask you for though - even if falling again in "heavy bubble burst mood", please stay with arguments that have more substance than "it's proven by now" - at least at those points where I have proven otherwise.

No problem to question my "prove" though - but you have to become far more specific than what I have read from you by now

If this looks to be too much of a burden for you - *I'd* rather prefer not to discuss CMP issue with you.

I assure you that I'm pretty well aware that what I claim with my conceptualization of CMP behaviour plus its widespread involvement plus its implications on "frequency response concept", puts a loooot upside down in audio - so - no need to tell me that over and over again.



Michael

[dlr]

Originally Posted by mige0

No problem to question my "prove" though -

From what has been presented on this "CMP concept", there is no "proof" yet to question.

Dave

[mige0]

Great

[john k...]

Originally Posted by mige0

Great

With all due respect, Micheal, starting new threads smells a lot like the avoiding the issues as was the case with the Enable nonsense. You leave me openly baffled.

[mige0]

Originally Posted by john k...

With all due respect, Micheal, starting new threads smells a lot like the avoiding the issues as was the case with the Enable nonsense. You leave me openly baffled.

Not sure what you mean - how many dedicated CMP threads do you count for now ?

At Lynns thread I was told pretty clearly that CMP is way OT - though not by Lynn.
At Elias thread measuring / analyzing / visualization with wavelets it the main thing - so CMP is slightly OT there too.

Also - this is a "quiet corner" not in the focus of most - so no accuse of prestigious acting - good place for elaborating on CMP - no ?

Michael

[mige0]

Originally Posted by soongsc

FR is just one way of looking at data, and supports the design process. It is not a way of evaluating whether a system is good or not. So how does CMP work in the design process? This is what I consider very impractical. Only people doing that need to publish some kind of thesis might consider something impractical as this for practical purposes.

Yes I fully agree on „FR is just one way of looking at data“

But you have to be aware that FR – with non-CMP systems is a determination of spectral ditribution along the time line too.

With CMP systems this is no longer the case.

The practical conclusions out of this are possibly marginal – as said – ESL lovers havent noticed any bad for long time – OB lovers same thing though less „old“ .


I know you are after „results“.
But regarding CMP anybody is an „early adapter“ - right now its no more than a differnt point of view.


Michael

[soongsc]

Originally Posted by john k...

With all due respect, Micheal, starting new threads smells a lot like the avoiding the issues as was the case with the Enable nonsense. You leave me openly baffled.

Love that illustration. It certainly presents good picture of systematically revealing different characteristics by using different data presentation.

With EnABL, I don't think it's totally nonsense, just not optimized in a way to have clearly measureable improvements. Same with cables, I have found characteristics of interconnects clearly measureable, tuneable, explainable corelation with listening impressions.

[soongsc]

Originally Posted by mige0

Yes I fully agree on „FR is just one way of looking at data“

But you have to be aware that FR – with non-CMP systems is a determination of spectral ditribution along the time line too.

With CMP systems this is no longer the case.

The practical conclusions out of this are possibly marginal – as said – ESL lovers havent noticed any bad for long time – OB lovers same thing though less „old“ .


I know you are after „results“.
But regarding CMP anybody is an „early adapter“ - right now its no more than a differnt point of view.


Michael

Well, first step in scientific research is presenting measurement data explaining CMP in it's actual existance. If you can pass that point, then you've at least gotton to first base.

[mige0]

Originally Posted by soongsc

Well, first step in scientific research is presenting measurement data explaining CMP in it's actual existance. If you can pass that point, then you've at least gotton to first base.

There is actually nothing more to do in this respect - no more than I have presented in my paper and is well known for long time under the the synonym "constructive and destructive interference" .
So CMP already is proven to be real - actually for a long time - its the acceptance of my point of view that is under question - and, to some extent - the impacts concerning correctability.

The point that is "new" is to put - and see - that behaviour as a "CMP system ".

You know - usually any reflections get cut out of the picture as "ill room interaction" that has nothing to do with "excellent speaker performance" - so to say

Well, having learned that with horns there is a loooot of looped reflections involved and with OB (ESL, Tapped Horn, TM ...) as well, it deserved a concept (IMO) to describe and pin point those effects and its impacts.

"CMP concept" is just that.

Practically any speaker design has some CMP distortion mixed in - simply due to non optimal diffraction alignment in this respect.
To find out what that means - in terms of audible perception - will probably become just another never ending story.


Michael