Thanks for the flowers - and I agree with you that
"Audio as a "religion" IS the problem" – as well.
But as for truth – I stand to my point.
Lets keep on doing some further investigation about it in the less complicated department of science (compared to religion or right).
I guess you would agree that really *anything* in (post clergy) science is based upon math – no?
Now then - where is "truth" in math?
1+1=2
If you find this to be valid - its nothing else than a believe. Basically its an axiom you can accept or not and any further conclusions on more complex math operations are only logically based on that same believe – but still its a mere believe – an assumption with no prove whatsoever – nothing else
Though I admit it turns out to be a very useful believe – of course – but nevertheless a believe and no "truth"
as for "science is NOT a democracy".
No? – what would you call statistic results – the ultimate prove of any research when humans are included - other than kind of democracy?
We currently see one of the fundamentals in science falling – the speed of light is no longer valid as a brick wall limitation for speed (of information transfer) in our universe.
I'm certainly proud that Anton Zeilinger and friends have shown with their work that this also is valid in the macro world.
Bottom line – Albert was lying - and all of us are / have been the misguided believers of "his truth" (well - kidding! - to some extent)
Michael
"Audio as a "religion" IS the problem" – as well.
But as for truth – I stand to my point.
Lets keep on doing some further investigation about it in the less complicated department of science (compared to religion or right).
I guess you would agree that really *anything* in (post clergy) science is based upon math – no?
Now then - where is "truth" in math?
1+1=2
If you find this to be valid - its nothing else than a believe. Basically its an axiom you can accept or not and any further conclusions on more complex math operations are only logically based on that same believe – but still its a mere believe – an assumption with no prove whatsoever – nothing else
Though I admit it turns out to be a very useful believe – of course – but nevertheless a believe and no "truth"
as for "science is NOT a democracy".
No? – what would you call statistic results – the ultimate prove of any research when humans are included - other than kind of democracy?
We currently see one of the fundamentals in science falling – the speed of light is no longer valid as a brick wall limitation for speed (of information transfer) in our universe.
I'm certainly proud that Anton Zeilinger and friends have shown with their work that this also is valid in the macro world.
Bottom line – Albert was lying - and all of us are / have been the misguided believers of "his truth" (well - kidding! - to some extent)
Michael
mige0 said:
Science is simply a rational process used to uncover the physical relationships (laws) that govern the natural world. Observe, hypothesize, test, repeat many times with many variations. If the hypothesis stands the test of time, it becomes a theory.
It's pointless to get into an existential discussion here. Please, let's not devolve into sillyness.
Sheldon
mige0 said:
Math appears to be an axiomatic system of conclusions. In that 1+1=2 is correct by definition. The same with audio: if it measures correct, it sounds correct. One may find similar relations everywhere.
But - audio business knows a clue to seperate people from their money:
(1) Argue about a problem that the customer would have
(2) Sell him the solution for that speculative problem
(3) Goto (1)
Everey 'subjective' issue is a consequence of (1)--(3). Alas besides of really bad engineering. To give a prominent example: STEREO. It doesn't work as intended. Maybe with headphones to some degree, never ever with loudspeakers. I never met a person who really believed in that illusion of space etc all those audiophiles are so tremendously keen on. It is as impossible for a normal brain to believe as it would be to see a film as reality. You now from the first note that it is just a simile, a sound-alike as to say.
While magazines, suppliers and manufacturers support the wrong expectations in STEREO it is easy to catch people at step (1). It is granted that they will never be satisfied. The 'cure' will never apply to the real problem. So starting the next cycle at step (3) is easy.
"loudspeakers should vanish in the soundfield" - they can't! Your hearing would have to be seriously sick, and I just don't know with what desease ...
Truth with audio is very simple. It's selling illusionary hopes for illusions.
so long
I am in support of Lynn. 96/24 and 44.1/16 - I have guys who sweared standard CDs and SACDs don't make that much difference. Those were hard-core audiophiles who would have had countless hours listening to the difference between CDs and SACDs. Every single one of them changed his mind once he heard SACDs from my system, then described it as night and day difference.
Maybe stereo doesn´t always work as advertised. But it surely works as intended by the inventors. If it does not work for you, you may have to work on your loudspeakers. Or you may be one of the rare breed of man who can´t resolve stereo in their brains. Lynn reported about those people some xxx posts ago in this thread.xpert said:
Stereo is an illusion and a "sound-alike" of course. It never was meant another way. You surely should not take that advertisement bushwa serious. And stereo is about horizontal dispersion only - no height or depth. The latter dimensions can be emphasized some way by following Blauert, but that is not in the realm of stereo.
Seeing film as reality: Nobody still in his right mind would take a movie as reality. But I can easily let myself get immersed into the plot. If you can´t, you are pitiable IMHO. It´s the fun of watching a movie. Same for stereo. If you can´t let the illusion get hold of you - forget about it.
If my loudspeakers don´t "vanish in the soundfield", it´s always because of poor recording. If that is "sick", I feel strongly in line with most everybody in this forum. If you don´t allow your brain to let the speakers vanish - same as above.
Rudolf
BTW: If you don´t discuss in the scientific domain, your arguments often miss the support of substantial sources, but look to be guided by kind of irrational preconceptions. May be you would like to work on that. It would help to come to terms more easily.
Rudolf said:
Maybe stereo doesn´t always work as advertised. ...Or you may be one of the rare breed of man who can´t resolve stereo in their brains. ...
If my loudspeakers don´t "vanish in the soundfield", it´s always because of poor recording.
...
BTW: If you don´t discuss in the scientific domain, your arguments often miss the support of substantial sources, but look to be guided by kind of irrational preconceptions. May be you would like to work on that. It would help to come to terms more easily.
Hi Rudolf,
Thanks for Your reply. BTW: Did You get JohnKs argumentation on dipoles?
On STEREO: You move Your head only slightly and the illusion has to be recallibrated. It works if the listener is used to stereo. Some are as used to it as in riding a bicycle. But it is not natural. Interaural crosstalk etc. is to some degree a stress situation - maybe like getting seasick: a sensoric conflict.
I've personally no trouble with finding the direction of the speakers irregardless of their quality. Every time with any recording.
Sometimes I take the effort to hear recordings as STEREO. But that does not last so long, maybe 5 minutes or so. I can identify the intention of STEREO, but it bothers me. Mostly I hear music just to enjoy its development, structures in harmonies or sounds. For the best comfort I lie on my couch then. There is some rest of horizontal dimension left to perceive. I don't care usally. I suspect that my behaviour isn't to uncommon, is it?
That does not mean that I ain't able to evaluate the qualification of a stereoset && room interaction as being beneficial. But I wouldn't drag STEREO perception in the limelight when it comes to "truth". The best speaker is that one that I continously trust in. The common audiophile is afflicted in doubt. His attitude is contrary to trust. In some extent the audiophile hinders himself. To doubt anything, example given the "confluent dispersive character of electrons - sound wize" is the very last You need to enjoy. Man, I just see I described what common people would call hell. I stick by objectivsm. You hear what You measure, period.
so long
Sheldon said:
gedlee said:
I agree –
from time to time though, it might help to keep an open mind by reminding some epistemologically (erkenntnistheoretisch / cognitive science) thoughts about the limitations of science and perception (subjective or “proven”) of reality in general – telling us that we already *should* know :
that we don’t “know for sure” – and from the Zeilinger / Einstein example given – no scientific theory / concept can be taken for granted (at least not for the last word on whatever subject)
It also might bridge the gap of what we experience subjectively and what is proven scientifically in terms of not excluding each others take on “reality” - allowing for even very crude ideas like that there is possibly infinite speed, compressed electron pools, speed of speakers related to BL, break in effects for mere soldering points or whatever.
Not to say that we could / should not correct for obvious misconceptions / interpretive errors - mind you.
(like to relativise the believe in “scientifically proven truth” or “all that counts is measurable” for example
)Michael
winslow said:
Even if - from what would You know it was really there? I'm afraid this thread contains a lot of most principle concerns regarding the speakers existence in itself.
What I will do next is a smallish speaker comprising 18Sound 8MB400 and an appropiate waveguided SEAS metal dome tweeter. Crossover at about 1500Hz. Both checked out since long and found to be very good.
It will require external equalization example given with an adustable shelving filter for the lowest boom-frequencies. The size will be about 1,3 x 1 x 0,7 feet^3. It will blow out 100dB at 40Hz with less than 50Watts and half of its x-max.
I'm convinced it will be a solid speaker, lightweight, handy, not to expensive to listen to music in the end within its wide limitations related to an European livingroom. Just for fun.
But still curious what I would do wrong with an attempt like that. Should I consider counting the directivity matrix of electrons bitwise along the Kopenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics or what else? From what will I know that I am elected to be an audiophile (just kidding) ...
gedlee said:
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was faster then light.
She went out one day
In a relative way
And returned the previous night.
You might be right, Earl - my memory about Einsteins theory is fading and might need some update.
As far as I remember there is / was the impicite statement in Alberts theories that speed of light is an absolute barrier (see rhyme above).
Zeilinger and friends (the measurements for speed have not been carried out by Zeilinger AFAIK) have shown that this isn't the case - for information transfer over a distance of roughly 100km - his latest record.
Michael
mige0 said:
I thought this was his field, I'm vaguely familiar with a couple of quantum encryption startups here in the Boston area. I'm waiting for someone to use this to explain the sound of their speaker cables.
"Quantum teleportation, or entanglement-assisted teleportation, is a technique used to transfer information on a quantum level, usually from one particle (or series of particles) to another particle (or series of particles) in another location via quantum entanglement. It does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal (faster than light) speed. Its distinguishing feature is that it can transmit the information present in a quantum superposition, useful for quantum communication and computation."
Michael
I thought that might be what you were talking about.
Einstein NEVER claimed that "information" could not be trasmitted faster than the speed of light, he claimed that no fields or particles could travel faster than the speed of light. Many have interpreted this to include "information", but that was not Einstein's claim. The use of particle intanglement as a "code" for information transmission is not really the transmission of anything physical as nothing is actually "sent" anywhere. The quantum state is a universal entity and hence exists everyone simultaneously. Most physicists believe that this is NOT a violation of Einsteins principles, but the discoverey of a new principle called entanglement.
I thought that might be what you were talking about.
Einstein NEVER claimed that "information" could not be trasmitted faster than the speed of light, he claimed that no fields or particles could travel faster than the speed of light. Many have interpreted this to include "information", but that was not Einstein's claim. The use of particle intanglement as a "code" for information transmission is not really the transmission of anything physical as nothing is actually "sent" anywhere. The quantum state is a universal entity and hence exists everyone simultaneously. Most physicists believe that this is NOT a violation of Einsteins principles, but the discoverey of a new principle called entanglement.
scott wurcer said:
I'm waiting for someone to use this to explain the sound of their speaker cables.
Now that its introduced to the audiophools - we can start the countown - any bet's ?
scott wurcer said:
Yes it is - but less so for the mere speed measurement AFAIK.
The most striking fact is that Zeilinger's experiments work in the macro world.
Michael
gedlee said:
Yes - Anton Zeilinger is very coutious with own theories on that - from what i have grabbed he is calling it a "transfer of properties".
But to me - not being an authority - anything is an anything either mass or energy - its hard to exclude "information" from both (what would this mean to the property of "frequency" from this point of view for example?).
- I really have dificulties to regress to a new cook of the ancient concept of aether - but who am I ?
Michael
Thanks Lynn, for allowing some OT BS'ing
I can follow "Dipole woofer on axis response in relation to listening distance" quite easily. If you are going from far field to near field, you need ever less compensation for the 6dB dipole rolloff. In praxis you have to count in the floor reflection and the room modes of course, so things become more complicated. But I always found that I had to EQ less than 6 dB/oct - unless I tried to force EQ below the lowest room mode.xpert said:
The results of "Dipole_modesA.html" look a bit esoteric to me. The "two point source" model of a dipole will behave quite different than a real OB or H frame in a real room. I never observed that radical shut-off of tangential room modes as suggested by the figure "Dipole all modes, aligned".
Stereo works for me in a horizontal range of double ear distance max. May be it had some learning curve, but I can´t remember. And I surely could never call it "stress". Staying comfortly in a convincing stereo illusion has become easier for me with every successful step to make the speakers disappear more.
If I would concentrate on "hearing the speakers", I would - too. But I can neglect them quite easily.
I can´t suppress the feeling that my ears/brain and your´s must work VERY different WRT stereo listening. Very strange. Even when I assume that you are listening much more critical than I do, I can´t see how it could become that much "work".
Enjoying music does not depend on stereo - thats for sure. But in my case stereo makes it easier to separate voices and instruments - and enforce the illusion of the real thing.
To finally come to an end: Stereo for sure is some sort of "cheating" the ear/brain. If you don´t allow yourself to get cheated, but insist on maximal "truth" and trust, that is very honorable, but to me it would be no fun.
Rudolf
Rudolf said:
And this is where we can separate the subjective from the objective. It's a subjective matter as to what exact combination of characteristics appeals to the individual listener. This is true, even if the majority of listeners prefer the same mix - especially so here, as it's DIY and we don't have to hit a mass group.
The objective part comes in describing the physical attributes of a system that correlate with specific characteristics, with the goal being to reliably predict the outcome. To do this, we need consistent terminology and measurements. We don't need to define "better" or "worse", only to match cause and effect.
I want both. I want to be able to measure, predict, and modify - to suit my taste. The easiest target is to shoot for technical accuracy (output matches input). And for that reason, it's a good starting point. But some will want to add subtle flavors - reflections, maybe some harmonics, reverberations, who knows? No reason not to have those tools defined and quantifiable too.
Sheldon
Huuuhhh: The Spooky Physics of Entanglement