Yes, true science "follows the evidence" ... or should. Explanations should be always considered as Works in Progress - my understanding of science is that this is the process - the current explanation is highly likely to be a stepping stone to a fuller, more encompassing explanation, an 'improvement', further down the track.
Seeing that current, 'scientific explanations' in audio are considered somewhat feeble, insufficiently encompassing, by a high percentage of the people involved in the field, I suspect that some 'improvements' to the explanations will need to occur ...
Seeing that current, 'scientific explanations' in audio are considered somewhat feeble, insufficiently encompassing, by a high percentage of the people involved in the field, I suspect that some 'improvements' to the explanations will need to occur ...
Pages are relative since users can choose to display up to 50 posts per page, which is what my page setting is so this is only the 100th page for me.
se
On the contrary, I think you will find that most people believe that 'scientific explanations' in audio are correct and almost complete - which is what I thought you were complaining against? The fact that a small minority regard them as "feeble" is not sufficient evidence to discard major chunks of electromagnetism, solid-state physics etc. People manage to design sonar etc. without having to discard the science they learnt in school, so why is the much easier job of reproducing music thought to be so difficult by those who wouldn't have a clue about sonar?fas42 said:
Peak of perfection?
On a typical dynamic speaker driver, there is a steep peak of resistance , followed by a gradually rising resistance to the frequency limits of the driver's upper range.So if relatively higher impedance is accompanied with a steady output level, doesn't this mean the driver is adding a resonance to its input signal?
Shouldn't a well designed driver have a flat impedance to eliminate phase angle distortions , and do away with adding colourations with the added resonances?
Never received an answer besides , "those things are unavoidable, and therefore unimportant ".
But I do find an electrically and physically phase coherent speaker is easier on the ears.
Anyone else wonder about this stuff?
On a typical dynamic speaker driver, there is a steep peak of resistance , followed by a gradually rising resistance to the frequency limits of the driver's upper range.So if relatively higher impedance is accompanied with a steady output level, doesn't this mean the driver is adding a resonance to its input signal?
Shouldn't a well designed driver have a flat impedance to eliminate phase angle distortions , and do away with adding colourations with the added resonances?
Never received an answer besides , "those things are unavoidable, and therefore unimportant ".
But I do find an electrically and physically phase coherent speaker is easier on the ears.
Anyone else wonder about this stuff?
Ooold post
As a carpenter who also does highrise concrete formwork when there's no other work around, I have been zapped many times drilling in to vertical and horizontal concrete on wet days many times when the drill bit hits rebar.
Is it possible there's a small em field going through the rebar grids embedded in all concrete flooring? And that this could (small chance) interact noticably with an audio signal?
Having queried this, I did hear some living voice speakers driven by hovland amps, with and without the cable lifters.
Store owner's assurances notwithstanding, I could hear no difference.
I do have cables with arrows on them myselfconnected the right direction, of course.
they looked nice and if I invite audiophiles to my place I tell them they're the best sounding ones I've been able to find, they look spectacular enough to be credible
but... looks like this "nouveau audiophilia" is emerging: throw all the theory, damn the engineers.
d@mn it, I'm not agianst cable lifters. some people use egg crates. they're free. if they provide pleasure (even imagined) it's fine.
but giving up on logic altogether? deny reality?
As a carpenter who also does highrise concrete formwork when there's no other work around, I have been zapped many times drilling in to vertical and horizontal concrete on wet days many times when the drill bit hits rebar.
Is it possible there's a small em field going through the rebar grids embedded in all concrete flooring? And that this could (small chance) interact noticably with an audio signal?
Having queried this, I did hear some living voice speakers driven by hovland amps, with and without the cable lifters.
Store owner's assurances notwithstanding, I could hear no difference.
Yes, I would consider this to be the major consideration: to me, this revolves around how capable the hearing system is in decoding what it hears, how discriminating it is. From personal experience, and other accounts I've come across, this is sadly underestimated by most research efforts, hence my strong stance on the 'scientific explanations'.
I certainly agree the physical process of reproduction is mostly well understood; but the nagging lacking I still see is not taking the material properties which influence electrical behaviours seriously enough - this is the sort of thing which has driven me crazy at times over the years, I do something which has nominally no connection with electrical activity, yet the sound changes - what is going on, I ask?? The only explanation which has traction, for me, is that there is some mechanism related to the materials in that area, which ultimately can cause electrical interference, or variability.
They were hoping you had moved your head enough when they switched between no risers to using risers, that way you would have heard a difference purely due to comb filtering.
Again, the real value in playing with these is to get some subjective ranking of what's important in getting satisfying sound - I have been repeatedly astonished by how well recordings come across if tweaking in key areas is done, irrespective of how dreadful the conventional, measured performance figures would be. A lot of this can be expressed by talking of the 'bigness' of the sound - tiny speakers, yet there is an expansive, rich soundscape projected by them - completely satisfying to listen to ...
Sorry, that doesn't wash - I undo the change, the sound reverts to its original qualities; go back and forth, back and forth, until you're sure of the observation. Possible steps are then to attempt to understand the underlying mechanism, or circumvent the behaviour - the latter is what I'm really interested in, to make the sound "robust" - no matter what I do in the environment the perceived quality no longer changes, it's nailed or pinned to a repeatable, enduring level ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.