On the contrary, this statement made perfect sense:Mark Tillotson said:
Just one minor snag: it is completely and utterly false, untrue and based on profound ignorance. Orthogonality can be applied to signals; that is how modern broadcast and communication systems work. For example, DAB broadcasting is based on OFDM modulation - guess what the O stands for? It is precisely by treating signals analytically that systems can be designed.N101N said:
The remainder of his post may have been automatically generated by a bot which saw some words in a technical dictionary but did not read the meanings.
I have to say I’m confused by N101N. As a physicist I feel comfortable around technical jargon. I actually agree with him that orthogonality doesn’t make sense in music signals because it’s not a set of steady frequencies (DF96: OFDM is not analogous to music. In that case it is the carrier bands that are both steady and orthogonal.) And I agree that carbon-composite resistors have good high frequency performance, not sure if that relates to graininess though. But beyond these clear statements, there are grammatical problems that make the rest of the text impenetrable. For example: What is meant by “it”. You talk of magnetic fields, but which and where? Ambiguities abound.
I understand your point. But I guessed the man had good ears. He talked about quietness, breathing and emotion. It seems easy to reproduce guitar but ime recorded guitar does not sound as good as the real one. Also with tube amplification and speakers like shown, I believe that the 'size' of the vocal will be unrealistically bigger to start with. In live and in a good system we can also easily observe when a vocalist struggle with his/her breathing. Such detail is hard to reproduce. I always miss it when I don't have it.
Hi ! yes i see your point. In the specific case one person mentioned that usually it is not easy to get the ideal seat in a concert hall ... so a recording that has been made in ideal conditions can provide a more satisfying experience.
Sometimes when the reproduced sound is good i stop to think to the rig and just enjoy the music. Personally i find that listening blindfolded helps a lot ... i do not get distracted by looking around to objects and lights ...
Hi ! yes that is the whole point ... i guess mics were placed strategically in the best spot ... On top of that last time i went to a concert unfortunately i seated close to a old man coughing ... i would have killed him I really think that virtual can be more rewarding than the real thing And much more convenient as well imhe when i hear really great sound i just enjoy the music ...
I was at first. I tried to extract meaning from his posts, assuming that he was a bit confused and maybe a little eccentric in his views. I eventually came to the view that he is simply pulling our legs. He uses lots of technical words but seems not to know what they actually mean. He opposes everything and offers nothing. I guess he gets some sort of pleasure from this behaviour.skem said:
Hi, the listening room is an acoustic box!
Some put the midrange in a box, and that is a box in a box in a box!!
skem,
sorry for causing confusion. I hope we can resolve the ambiguities despite the grammatical problems. Sadly, I have trouble writing detailed posts.
By “it includes” I meant to say that the phase angle of 90° arises through a 90° rotation of phase and frequency spectrum as a consequence of interaction between oppositely directed parallel forces (180°) of the same magnitude. Both 90° and 180° are terrible phase relationships, many bad things happening. The wide phase angle of 180° is a resonant relationship producing an ugly harmonic spectrum. A phase angle of 90° produces no harmonic spectrum just pure black energy.
It's good enough for people having strong nerves to deal with graininess.
I actually said "driving" magnetic field, denoting an external field.
Graininess is an outright high frequency phenomenon, but carbon-composite resistors are superior at all frequencies due to a favorable low density crystalline structure. We don`t like metallic contamination over here.
¤¤¤
To those who have lamentably embraced preveiling tenets adapted to the understanding and taste of the majority and in their naïve approach thinking that electric signals are countable like a handful of beans or something.
The transition and transformation rules have no validity for signals. The rotation spectrum of an atom or molecule that does not have a permanent dipole moment is immeasurable by any method. The audio signal is of inconceivable intricacy, no sane person would even attempt to conceptualize it.
Nevertheless, the Fourier Transform is commonly regarded as brilliant piece of axiomatic bravura, the only minor snag would be (nothing serious) that what it churns out is some generalized fancy statistical trash. Entertainment for the people.
sorry for causing confusion. I hope we can resolve the ambiguities despite the grammatical problems. Sadly, I have trouble writing detailed posts.
By “it includes” I meant to say that the phase angle of 90° arises through a 90° rotation of phase and frequency spectrum as a consequence of interaction between oppositely directed parallel forces (180°) of the same magnitude. Both 90° and 180° are terrible phase relationships, many bad things happening. The wide phase angle of 180° is a resonant relationship producing an ugly harmonic spectrum. A phase angle of 90° produces no harmonic spectrum just pure black energy.
It's good enough for people having strong nerves to deal with graininess.
I actually said "driving" magnetic field, denoting an external field.
Graininess is an outright high frequency phenomenon, but carbon-composite resistors are superior at all frequencies due to a favorable low density crystalline structure. We don`t like metallic contamination over here.
¤¤¤
To those who have lamentably embraced preveiling tenets adapted to the understanding and taste of the majority and in their naïve approach thinking that electric signals are countable like a handful of beans or something.
The transition and transformation rules have no validity for signals. The rotation spectrum of an atom or molecule that does not have a permanent dipole moment is immeasurable by any method. The audio signal is of inconceivable intricacy, no sane person would even attempt to conceptualize it.
Nevertheless, the Fourier Transform is commonly regarded as brilliant piece of axiomatic bravura, the only minor snag would be (nothing serious) that what it churns out is some generalized fancy statistical trash. Entertainment for the people.
WHoa!
Yes, of course, almost all acoustic cabinets are closed or semi-closed, except IB or OB.
Of course, the room is another box that contains them and creates its own drawbacks, so I am very happy at the end of the year parties or other events to take the system out to the garden, that sounds much better!
But I don't understand how you relate what you say with the OP point
...😕
Although this has nothing to do with the OP point, the most difficult thing to emulate is a symphony orchestra. The drawback is the large number of instruments and the large physical space where the musical work is performed. You just have to go to a concert to realize the impossible of a reliable reproduction.
Luciano Pavarotti's outdoor recitals don't count, that's totally amplified.
Nor do I see much effort in the vocalist, it is only the natural "air intake in an interpreter with the educated diaphragm
Yes, many professional mathematicians (NOT engineers) many times stated the following:
"Musical signal is a complex NON-PERIODIC signal, which, strictly speaking, a priori is methodologically impossible to expand into the Fourier series on a predetermined and arbitrary segment, because this decomposition directly depends on the position of a segment chosen, and therefore cannot be used as a convincing initial model for generating further EXACT practical conclusions. It is obvious.
The thing is, that ALL the theory and practice of AC circuits is based on harmonic oscillations, i.e. on linear combinations of sinusoids of voltages and currents, moreover, without them, in general, no meaningful theory can be built with an exit to practice, and no circuit can be calculated. And this, in turn, very clearly outlines the range of tasks to which it is effectively applicable. But, unfortunately, audiophilia sometimes goes beyond this circle, which gives rise to online battles."
Do you mean some audiophiles have difficulty accepting that a complex signal can be broken down into sine waves?
Such decomposition is ambiguous, for instance, in one decomposition one could observe peak at 1,45kHz, in other decomposition of the same musical signal - peak will be not there. This is what pretend to say mathematicians - we deal with a model, which is limited in applicability. This is clean from the very beginning. And GNFB theory has limitations. It is perfect for machining tools control, and in MANY other fields, but not perfect for audio. Or maybe perfect enough for many people, but not for all.
Last edited:
Here is the way I see it:
Audiophiles tend to have strong ability to perceive differences that is often unexplained by measurements. They then mistakenly blame the basic Physics as insufficient to explain the phenomena. Of course, the electronics experts, who understand Math and Physics know exactly that there is nothing wrong with it, and sometimes mistakenly think that there is actually no differences...
Imho, there is no need to invent new Physics. People just looking in the wrong way...
Yes, it is typical argument of many opponents: Please invent something different and better, and we shall better stand by, until you will receive Nobel Prize. ANY theory describes phenomenon only approximately. For some phenomena a given theory is more than enough, for others - a bit imperfect.
Last edited:
The key word is perception. We build the sound in our brains and look for patterns, it's quite reasonable to assume a combination of measurable phenomena create in our minds something which isn't there.
What Nobel Prize? 😕 Audio is not Electronics. Electronics is matured, while audio is not. No offense, there is no geniuses in audio. Geniuses in Electronics don't go to audio.