Oh were you bring funny? Sorry I missed it. My loss. One less chuckle for the day than I could have enjoyed.
touche!
It also shows why any attempt to reproduce concert hall acousitcs using the capture/store/retrieve/reproduce strategy is doomed to fail no matter how many recording playback channels are used.
I presume this means that anything already captured is hopelessly lost.
I presume this means that anything already captured is hopelessly lost.
The characteristic parameters of the acoustics where the recording was made are irretrievably lost. However, an acoustic space suitable for the type of music performed can usually be reconstructed from what remains available. It just won't be exactly the same space. At best, similar.
I should point out that acoustics of place are not constant. Not only do they vary with conditons of state, they also vary with how many people are in the audience, where they are seated, what kind of clothing they are wearing. This is well known and can be easily seen from measured data for concert halls given when they are empty and filled. There can be substantial changes in parameters. The precise field the listener experiences will also depend on where in the audience he is seated.
Soundminded, so if I read your post correctly, you have a better way of reproducing sound and evidence/analysis that other approaches are inferior. But these methods are neither published nor available for demonstration, peer review, or replication, so we are to take this on faith.
Is this correct?
Yes that's right....if you consider a United States Patent in the public domain unpublished.
Besides no cite to the patent (there's about 8 million to choose from), you said, "Only enough of the model was revealed to obtain the patent." So, it remains, you're making extravagant claims and not doing anything whatever to back them up.
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously, and I'm not exactly notorious for belief in woo-woo in audio.
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously, and I'm not exactly notorious for belief in woo-woo in audio.
You fellows are way behind the times.
Back in the 1980s Yamaha engineers went around to many famous concert halls and churches to record the acoustics. They stuck all those acoustics onto a microchip and into a box. You can call them up with a push of the remote control button.
I have one of these boxes. 😉
Back in the 1980s Yamaha engineers went around to many famous concert halls and churches to record the acoustics. They stuck all those acoustics onto a microchip and into a box. You can call them up with a push of the remote control button.
I have one of these boxes. 😉
Besides no cite to the patent (there's about 8 million to choose from), you said, "Only enough of the model was revealed to obtain the patent." So, it remains, you're making extravagant claims and not doing anything whatever to back them up.
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously, and I'm not exactly notorious for belief in woo-woo in audio.
Perhaps I'll be coy the way Curl is with his wire measurements.
You fellows are way behind the times.
Back in the 1980s Yamaha engineers went around to many famous concert halls and churches to record the acoustics. They stuck all those acoustics onto a microchip and into a box. You can call them up with a push of the remote control button.
I have one of these boxes. 😉
Which one?
You fellows are way behind the times.
Back in the 1980s Yamaha engineers went around to many famous concert halls and churches to record the acoustics. They stuck all those acoustics onto a microchip and into a box. You can call them up with a push of the remote control button.
I have one of these boxes. 😉
Does it have a moshpit setting?
Perhaps I'll be coy the way Curl is with his wire measurements.
And you'll be taken equally seriously. Actually, much less seriously, since John provided his spectra and test setup as well as allowed in a skeptical observer. He's probably wrong, but he's openly and honestly wrong.
When you're ready to contribute and move beyond trolling, I'll be most interested in a serious discussion. Until that point, I really don't think that anything you post is worth a response from anyone.
Which one?
The good old Yamaha DSP-1.
(FWIW, it sounds like a Yamaha)
Sound fields
This guy is working on processing binaural info from two speakers using data already on the recording. Apparently, constant directivity speakers are in order.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/grants_in_princeton_alums_name.html
http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/
This guy is working on processing binaural info from two speakers using data already on the recording. Apparently, constant directivity speakers are in order.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/grants_in_princeton_alums_name.html
http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/
Last edited:
And you'll be taken equally seriously. Actually, much less seriously, since John provided his spectra and test setup as well as allowed in a skeptical observer. He's probably wrong, but he's openly and honestly wrong.
When you're ready to contribute and move beyond trolling, I'll be most interested in a serious discussion. Until that point, I really don't think that anything you post is worth a response from anyone.
Sigh! 🙄
This guy is working on processing binaural info from two speakers using data already on the recording. Apparently, constant directivity speakers are in order.
Grants in Princeton alum's name allow professors, students to pursue off-beat passions | NJ.com
I'm aware of it. Looks like he's going down the same path as Glasgal/Yates took with ambiophonics 15 years ago. IMO it's another dead end.
Home Page
The good old Yamaha DSP-1.
(FWIW, it sounds like a Yamaha)
If you know exactly how to use it, you can use it to build a rudimentary version of my invention although digital processing is only part of it. Two different patent attorneys advised me not to sue for infringement. I didn't and it turned out to be good advice.
It took me several years an a lot of effort to get the current hybrid digital/analog version of my prototype to exceed the original purely analog version in all important respects. It's still difficult to operate but it does work and it is more reliable and less cumbersome than the original analog version.
If you know exactly how to use it, you can use it to build a rudimentary version of my invention although digital processing is only part of it. Two different patent attorneys advised me not to sue for infringement. I didn't and it turned out to be good advice.
That's from 1985 so any preceeding patents have already expired.😕
That's from 1985 so any preceeding patents have already expired.😕
Correct, but not expired when this was marketed. In fact quite recent at the time. You will notice examining it that DSP-1 is not covered by a patent. Care to guess why?
That's from 1985 so any preceeding patents have already expired.😕
From the dropped clues, it's probably 4,332,979, which would have expired during the last century.
From the dropped clues, it's probably 4,332,979, which would have expired during the last century.
Yes, the patent expired in 1999. I am the first to agree that it was not well written. Additionally, an attempt was made to incorporate a measuring device but that was deemed a different art requiring a separate patent. Vestiges of that somehow remained among the sketches without explanation. That made it even more confusing 😎
Yes, the patent expired in 1999. I am the first to agree that it was not well written. Additionally, an attempt was made to incorporate a measuring device but that was deemed a different art requiring a separate patent. Vestiges of that somehow remained among the sketches without explanation. That made it even more confusing 😎
The big ball like thing? Lots of stuff there reminds me of a Dick Burwen invention. (We didn't even need 20 questions)
The big ball like thing? Lots of stuff there reminds me of a Dick Burwen invention. (We didn't even need 20 questions)
The two spherical devices were associated with a measuring instrument. They were not part of the description or the claims.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II