|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.228.183.13
In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 13:49:35
>>I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility.<<
Thanks, I think I'll take up your recommendation...
>>We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause.<<
I understand your concern, that there is still a lot of controversy here about what consitutes a correct or incorrect polarity.
>>If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue. <<
Well, being the pragmatic, realistic type, I'm not convinced myself that anything can be done about the issue of inverted polarity. If most audiophiles don't think much of it, what chance of recording engineers to take pains to get it right? But even those that do, it seems it would do little good, when there are so many ways it can be inverted throughout the chain (absolute polarity, speaker polarity, AC polarity, etc). If there is no easy, quick, objective way for the typical audio consumer to recognize when it is wrong and correct it, chances are it won't get corrected.
>>All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. <<
That's a fair assumption.
>>Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered.<<
There's a medical condition now, that prevents you from being able to ensure that discussions on polarity will be productive? What is that called, "polaritis"? I'm sure cj has his own reasons for whatever he does, his own thoughts on the matter, and they may (or may not) have any relation to your own perceptions of such. They're only your perceptions, they are not absolute truth. You are free to think what you will, but I doubt cj cares about "proving you wrong", enough to even find out what that entails. While you both have an interest in the subject matter (which I think is a good thing), he may simply have different ideas than you about what can or can't, should or shouldn't be done about the problem. It's no different than being in the AES. They try to adopt standards collectively (and do their own share of arguing about audio criteria), but all don't agree on what the rest think. As it should be.... (I'm not one to believe in the "majority is right!" rule).
>>Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. <<
Exactly. Which is why I feel that you still disagree with me, May (and other Beltists) about the causality of the tweaks you've experimented with. It appears you haven't yet performed the tests that would negate your theories (not that I can predict whether you will come to the same conclusion as we have, even if you do the tests). We should all at least agree that it's important to test a contradicting hypothesis (where it's easily possible), in order to progress in our understanding of a given phenomenon. If you were certain, say, the hand lotion tweak worked by static discharge, it would be incumbent on me to test this notion, if it contradicted my own.... unless, that could already be disproven by a greater (more encompassing) theory.
>>And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects.<<
Yes, of course. I fully understand. So email it to me.... ;-)"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Follow Ups:
In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity.
He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon.
We can talk about recordings, but unless you state which recordings you use, you can always say you used something else and avoid any chance of being incorrect, which, again, in my opinion, is no great sin (being incorrect, that is).
I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. I believe this is essential for the listening community to experience the effect and to establish legitimacy. I have also pointed out speakers and actually named names for designs which have drivers in inverted polarity with respect to each other. In researching the whys I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements. Such measurements and the timing issues are clearly exhibited in Stereophile's tests reports on the speakers reviewed.
Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside.
Stu
Hi Stu,
I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying that folks emphasize amplitude measurements rather than time domain ones because they are more important, or because they are less revealing and make the speaker look better?
Rick
Elsewhere it has been called the "crossover catastrophe", which really puts an edge to it.
clark
I believe the amplitude measirements make for better ad copy and is easier to achieve. Time domain issues are more delicate to balance. Take Sterophile's test reports, for example. A frequency response sweep is much easier to interprete than the impulse test.
A time aligned system will show one upward spike and a slowly dimishing signal following the sharp rise. Most systems show a series of spikes, some with downward (negative) movement. Not a good indicator of time alignment. Considering the microphones are set up 1 meter away and the intervals for most of Stereophiles tests cover 5 milliseconds (IIRC). Well, you can do the math. An impulse test is supposed to act on all drivers simultaneously.
Many buyers want to get 'all' of the music, meaning all the frequencies possible. There is a great desire and emphasis to have a full frequency response in any design. I find for long term satisfaction, however, timing issues are quite important if musical nuance is important to your listening. Great musicians are better because they have command of the subtleties of their voice or instrument. I can live with a speaker of limited FR is it captures the fine nuances 'better'.Of course, YMMV.
Stu
Great Stu,
I thought that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure. I completely agree with you. I use two-way speakers (Celestion 3's) in the study and early on flipped the tweeter wiring so it would be in phase with the woofer. Sure it caused an on-axis notch at crossover but the result was well worth it. And I don't listen on-axis anyway.
My theory is that we are used to tuning out FR variations because they also occur in nature from things like foliage absorption. Timing problems on the other hand are less common, and much of the information we rely upon to survive in the wild, or on the street is encoded temporally. Yes, a flat FR looks good. And it IS good all else being equal, but it's only one view.
Something of interest to me currently is learning the frequency range where we are the most sensitive to timing (and hence harmonic alignment errors). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't extend all that high but may go lower than one would think. I've been toying with how to measure it but haven't hit upon an appealing scheme yet. Thoughts welcome. Heck, SWAG's at the result are welcome. For instance, I'm guessing that the upper critical frequency is ~8KHz.
Regards, Rick
of a driver in a system designed with it inverted actually creates a hump, rather than a notch. The inverted driver, being reversed to the polarity of the adjacent driver will generate cancellation where the frequencies overlap, and thus give the system a perceived steeper roll off at the crossover point.
I find the humps generally acceptable as it is not always that there is music in that overlap range. In your case, I would guess that the crossover is in the 2K to 3KHz range. Being that tuning A is about 440 Hz, you're in the fourth harmonic range for the most part.
As for hearing sensitivity range, calculate the distance between your ears (seriously !). That would translate to a wavelength of about 2.2 K Hz or thereabouts. Hearing sensitivity should be centered on about that frequency. Also consider the range of human voice: about middle C (~260 Hz) and up three octaves to about 2.1k Hz. Piano scale runs about 30 Hz to about 10k Hz. Because of the logarithmic nature of hearing, human perception is remarkably skewed to the bottom end of the scale, numerically.
Stu
Wow Stu, that may be THE answer.
I've read that hearing peaks around 3KHz but it never occurred to me that it might be tuned to match head thickness. I've also read that we can resolve interaural timing differences of 20uS, but didn't put the two together! I just bet you're right, that we are the most sensitive to phase and timing in that area also. Cool. It really makes sense, higher frequencies would be more difficult to analyze because the next wave coming along would cause interference, lower frequencies would provide worse timing resolution due to the slower slopes. And as you point out, instruments have plenty of harmonics in that area, probably because they were invented by humans!
In fact, your answer is such a good one that I'm just going to believe that it's correct and press onward. What a simple, elegant answer: The hearing range that matters the most for music is the voice range. I owe you a few, I like the brew and view at Whalers brewpub but it's a ways out of town for me...
Inverting the tweeter did cause a mild peak as I recall, but it's fairly benign. Think it sounded just a tad "brighter" than stock but it's been a long time. The notch is of course much more noticeable being deep and narrow. Of course the notch can approach infinity while the peak's limited to around 3dB. Since I listen off axis I don't notice the notch and overall find the sound is more satisfying.
Regards, Rick
d
s
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
a
Nope. Never even heard of it... I just read the plot summary on IMDB and it sounds wretched.
I find it a solid comfort being out of the popular culture. The minor downside is that even though I live in Springfield, I don't get most of the references on the Simpsons. Which actually makes perfect sense...
Rick
...I think it's stupid.
And so's Seinfeld!
clark
Clark, I don't have a clue of which you speak.
If I'm a being messed with, "they" are doing a great job because I don't know who's doing it, what they are doing, or in what manner I'm being influenced. Tell me more, perhaps my brain has been so skillfully laundered that I don't even recall the trip through the wringer...
I'm actually inclined to feel that I just gained an excellent insight from Stu with no effort on my own part. How can it get better than that? By golly, this forum is both fun AND informative!
As far as crossover's go, their compromises and trade-offs are hardly a secret or new news. I'm not a 'speaker guy' so I wasn't trying to optimize the design, just choose a different compromise. I believe that "speaker guys" are typically better informed and upfront about the tradeoffs of their designs than are "electronics guys". (And I'm one of the latter!)
Regards, Rick
If not, then they're not being terribly "upfront" about it are they?
As for their being "better informed", while they may (or may not) be aware of the havoc they wreck polarity-wise, is their being informed about it helpful to anyone?
clark
No, I think Stu nailed it: Frequency response is easier to relate to and sell. Perhaps due to the efforts of the FTC. However if the phase thing can be boiled down to something meaningful and possible then it could become a real marketing factor. And a factor in improving design as well.
I suspect that the key to it is identifying a subset of the audible bandwidth that provides the most meaningful polarity cues and specifying acceptable temporal performance over that bandwidth (the voice range?). Trying to do it full-range is insane unless you keep your head clamped or wear headphones. Perhaps nut-case audiophiles could help promulgate a standard. You would make an excellent point man to sell the concept.
I think audiophiles underestimate the importance "real" people attach to our opinions. Not that they would ever wish to be one, or associate with one for that matter, but still they want to have gear that is "audiophile quality" or "audiophile approved".
Rick
And it was all thoroughly covered in The Wood Effect (1988). I blame the magazines for neglecting this aspect; the old Audio used to do speaker reviews in which the phase distortion was measured *and published* in easy form, not the rather more confusing (albeit revealing) Melissa plots of today.
clark
Sorry, couldn't resist Clark...
Yes, I've read them. Heyser did a good job yet I don't recall them being particularly useful, maybe I'm just too superficial of a reader. I subscribed to Audio from ~1973 until they folded. Guess I mostly read magazines for interest and entertainment and largely ignore them when purchasing equipment.
Are you saying that you described a temporal metric that had good alignment with what listeners experienced? If so maybe I WILL have to spring for a copy.
Regards, Rick
Nothing however about temporal metrics -- saving that for a later day.
clark
The definitive statement on polarity written 20 years ago. It ignores simple impulse tests, it ignores many EIA standards in regards to microphones and headphones already in publication, it ignores the more recent AES 26 and other standards. It ignores new media such as laser discs, MP-3, and such, as one would expect from a relatively ancient and not well researched document. Now we are to await further details in an upcoming article, details of which can not be shared until publication. Clark's attempt to enlighten the general public shows his true colors: money before sharing of knowledge.
Such hubris
Stu
> > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
> > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). There must be other test CD's that contain such a test.
> > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
> > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
> > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case.
You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact.
> > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
> > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility. A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
> In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
True, up to a point. But in the case of polarity one has elements in the system to contend against, that obscure the phenomenon, viz. phase-incoherent loudspeakers (most of 'em are) and ineffectual switches.
> > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. [CJ has proven it. / cj] Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. [On the contrary, The Wood Effect names 52. / cj] I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, [Why must this point be stated over and over? "Absolute Polarity" does not inhere to any recorded medium -- only polarity, one way or the other. / cj] simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). [Done -- 52 times, in print, and more to come. / cj] That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. [Doesn't seem to have helped so far, in the twenty years since publication. / cj] It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
> On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. [No kidding! / cj] (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). [Problem: How does he know either a) What's "in" on the disc or b) What's "in" on your system? Eh? Eh? / cj] There must be other test CD's that contain such a test. [There are, but (shocking news!) they are not in total agreement. / cj]
> > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
> Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
But it's true of the hundreds of Japanese LPs I own, with a few truly auspicious exceptions; I am planning an article on this.
> > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
> You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
No, he means that he hasn't bothered to listen to any of my 52 enumerated polarities on records.
> > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
> There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? [Regrettably yes, but not too many among the "better" stuff. / cj] Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case. [Depends... if you make Amanda McBroom out-of-phase then you can listen more happily to the band! / cj] You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact. [Sadly true. Just another instance of what ignoring this effect has accomplished. / cj]
> > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not in any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
> Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege [Indeed, all I ever did was write a frikkin' book on the subject -- and now I find myself wasting time on nasty little nippers -- not you, Posy -- so maybe I should retire and let them stew . / cj] (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
Guess they'll just have to, eh?
clark, grateful that you understand
that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre.....
As for the 52 recordings you have previously listed, perhaps you could please list just a few which have alternating polarities?
Just wondering, as I have not seen any recordings listed in any AA forum.
Stu
UncleStu:
"It is good to know that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre....."
Ya see... you might get farther with him, and this subject, if you quit the sniping. That crack wasn't necessary, and I don't even think it was accurate, just a reflection of your prejudices. I don't believe Clark is paid for his articles, he does it as a labour of love. You asked him for a listing of identifiable recordings, after complaining that he wouldn't supply any, and he just agreed to provide one, in an upcoming article. But that's not good enough, you want it right away. Well, I think he's in his right to delay publication, it's certainly not out of order for an author to do this. You imply the reason he's not favouring your demand and publishing the list before his intended plans, in order to please you personally, is because of his selfish interest in the "filthy lucre". And, while I can see the reasons for your antagonism toward him, do you really see no good reason why he would behave this way toward you? cj's done a lot to help the audio community, not the least of which is having "written a frikkin' book" on the subject of polarity, helping audiophiles get the basics right for the cost of a free tweak. The results of which seems to have received more flack than appreciation, in general. I know exactly where he's coming from, since in the last couple of years I've done my own little efforts to help the community improve their sound for free, and received far more flack than appreciation. So I can understand how one's tolerance for "snipers"will diminish considerably over time, as one is faced with this kind of attitude, over and over again.
I still think you both have a lot in common and can have many productive discussions, but you -both- have to want it. You just gotta lose the attitude.
(ME telling someone to lose the attitude.... now -that's- irony!)
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing.
Stu
> > For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing. < <
From what I have read of his posts and responses to it, in current and past threads on polarity on this and other AA forums, I think, as I have said, you both have valid points to make. But if you can't get beyond the antagonism, neither of you will be able to communicate productively. Which is too bad because it appears you both have a lot to talk about, of mutual interest. I think he could be more forthcoming in some of his explanations, but he shouldn't have to keep repeating himself if the answers can be found in his book. That's why one writes a book. It isn't "shilling" to ask one to "RTFM". That's also why FAQs were invented, because newbs keep asking the same questions over and over, and it gets tiring for experts to keep wasting time responding to the same things. For example, I believe the information you were asking about the 52 recordings can be found in his book, which is why they were not listed on AA.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!
clark
I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu
CLARK WROTE:
"The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!"
STU RESPONDED:
"I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.
Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu"
STU WROTE (EARLIER):
"The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner."
....Well, I tried. Good luck with your polarity issues.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
v
Never answer any question directly,...sidestep, sidestep. But that's fine: since I am merely a stalker, and a dimwit to boot, simply nipping on your heels with attitude (all descriptors taken directly from your posts).
Your actions speak for themselves and I am not intimidated by them or by your perceived credentials, nor your 'attitude'. Still I detect an infinitesimally small shift in attitude on your part in attempting to engage May in a dialogue. Maybe further stalking will actually have you answer simple questions on the topics you claim to be an expert in. Maybe salvation is around.....ahh, I'll just have to be patient,...very, very patient.
We have all tried to be nice and accommodating, but that approach was very brusquely pushed aside and taken, seemingly, as an open invitation for a continuation for rude and contemptuous commentary with no information. If you want respect, please remember the Golden Rule: you do know that one don't you? It does not demean the person using it. You don't even have to practice that with me, just apply it to others who post and in a consistent manner.
Until then, I'll have to remain the "dog nipping at your heels" (your quote).
8^)
Stu
s
disappointed you. Still the 'man' refuses to answer any questions even when directly put to him, and now he states he is coming up with a future article or book. What is the purpose of participating on a forum, if the only answer is 'buy my book from 20 years ago.' Check out his response on General asylum when a perfectly valid question appears and advice is asked for. The central questions are sidestepped and there is little or no attempt to share experiences or observations. Look at his posts to Rick above. I am sure the information in them is very enlightening.
As I have told you, we can disagree, but at least we share observations and there is a furthering of knowledge in that simple fact, even if we question the causality. The same applies to May Belt and GK. They can state things and I can do so and still disagree on causality, but at least there is verification of certain observations. Oh we may quibble on certain applications, but there is commonality of certain experiences.
Even those who do not believe in the 'tweak' have another avenue of exploration, which may appeal to their sensibilities rather than an outward condemnation based on a theory they may think not true.
I am not against polarity at all. I have been told out right by Clark that I do not understand the true issue. For a long time I stood back and said nothing, until I realized that a man who claims to have taken the works of others in order to put polarity on the map was not really interested in enlightening any of the AA members.
It is akin to Chicken Little running about proclaiming "The sky is falling" but refusing to elaborate. The confusion surrounding the issue is rife with inaccuracies and nebulous statements.
Addressing the issue is simple to me: first you establish that the effect can exist and is audible. There are certain caveats necessary to do so: a phase coherent speaker certainly is one factor. Secondly is a definition of what is supposed to be correct.
Under pressure, Clark recently restated his definition from 20 years ago, which had been also iterated by George Louis and further electrically defined by the proposed AES standard. Any movement towards standardization meets vehement refusal and denials, however, hardly helpful to a settlement of the issue.
Yet since I have been on AA (about 5 years), he has steadfastly negated everyone else's attempts at understanding. No examples have been provided (unless you purchase his precious book). That book is 20 years old, and it ignores most video conventions and applications and does not take into account new formats, some of which have come and gone. Now he says, in essence, stay tuned while I write up something new....
Those actions are what galls me. It does not attempt to share any real understanding of the issue: it condemns anyone else who strives to do original thinking on the subject, demeaning them and thoroughly disgusts most who strive for an understanding of the subject and who attempt to question or post on AA. Many simply quit in disgust.
Look at his harsh attacks of Truthseekerprime, who is making an honest attempt at an understanding of the audibility of polarity. There is no encouragement, no hints, no observations or examples offered to further his understanding and testing methodology.
Now in my thinking, this is a good sample of the audio Inquisition: where only one dogma can be acceptable. I do not mind divergent paths in thinking and in experiences. We are, after all, human and thinking will often be divergent. If I firmly believe in something, as you do, I am willing to state my experiences with it and will share the application and understanding of it.
Mind you CJ did not invent or discover the phenomena, he merely published a pamphlet based on the observations and writings of others. It is not to me, a proprietary 'tweak' nor is it something that no one else has noticed before. It is not patentable, and CJ did not have or claim primacy in writing of it (that's why he called it the Wood Effect).
I do not know why he even interjects in discussions of the subject because there is precious little that he does contribute. He could have been a leader in the subject but he seems to be a major stumbling block. He constantly harps about the attitude of others, not realizing that it is his own attitude that draws such reaction.
Too bad. As I have stated before, at first, I allowed him to browbeat me, and I turned silent for months. Now I refuse to allow him the satisfaction of being the 'grand inquisitor', allowing the preaching of only the dogma of 'Clark.'
Stu
that you have learned from Clark's posts.
8^)
Stu
That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? They were pretty consistent before and appeared to be in 'correct' polarity. After the Kenny Rankin disc, they flip the polarity relative to previous recordings, even on their second test CD. It parallels the change of their recording equipment to George Kaye's stuff, not that I am accusing him of deliberately inverting polarity. Of course I have only checked out the discs to the first 100 titles or so, so I cant vouch for any other discs.
One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct.
Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads.
See what I mean about naming recordings? I have never seen anything similar from CJ. My high school teachers always accused me of writing of "glittering generalities" and not substantiating my statements with specific examples. I may be bad, but others can be worse and may be deliberately avoiding the issue completely.
Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent.
Stu
> > That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? < <
Nope, I don't even know what JD-63 is. The only Chesky stuff I have is that test CD, and I think another sampler. I'm not sure how you would know, if there's so much controversy about whether polarity is correct or not. A polarity switch light on a DAC?
> > One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct. < <
I don't get how the CDN version has its polarities reversed. Their pressing may be different, but assuming they are using the same master tape, isn't the order of polarity locked into the recording?
> > Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. < <
Which is...?
> > Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads. < <
Of course. But I can see where it can get complicated if "some" instruments have reverse polarity, relative to others on the same track(s), and pressings from some countries have inverse polarity, relative to pressings from other countries. And then you have take time to argue about which pressing is the "correct" polarity, when both contain multiple reversed polarities.
> > Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent. < <
BTW, I've always agreed with your assessment elsewhere, that time is the more important measurement than amplitude, and I can wholly believe that frequency response is only popular because its easy to measure. I think there are a lot of things important to audio that are either hard to measure or can't be, and yet all the focus is on those that are easy to determine, at the expense of everything else.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Anyway, not necessarily. That's part of the joke -- on us all!
clark
JD-63 is the Chesky catalog number.In another post I made the observation that on my EZ CD creator software, if I placed a ripped file into the hard drive and then recorded from it later, the recording was inverted in relation to the original file. A friend with the latest Mac reports the same.
I do not know why this is so as I have never bothered with reading the lines of code. I can work around the limitations.
The point about the HCT recording is that in one orientation, the piano is extremely clear and in another it is muffled and distant. The same occurs for the other two members of the trio, inverted to the piano, of course. Which is correct: well, what instrument or voice do you want to hear? Now, overall, having two members of the trio in 'correct' phase is usually preferable than having only one.
A nationally distributed magazine and it's staff comes out and proclaims one version of the recording 'sounds' better. Had they been aware of the issue, such a statement would not have been printed. While I'm sure the Canadian manufacturer was pleased with a boost in sales, it confounds the general public.
The same occurs with LP collectors. Certain pressings are deemed 'hot' stampers and often become highly sought after pressings, commanding higher prices. Sometimes the differences may be simple polarity swaps. You can tell that I'm a cheapskate: I really do not like paying high digits for something which can simply be resolved with a flick of a switch at times.
Preserving polarity in a piece of electronic gear is fairly easy. Signal generators can produce impulse tests quite readily. It can be 'iffy' with recordings, but a careful engineer can maintain polarity all the way through the manufacturing process. Ray Kimber says the easiest way to insure it is to fire a cap pistol at the recording session. You have a reference for the recording which can be followed through the chain. You can even use an oscilloscope to measure it as it proceeds through the recording and playback chain. Of course denial of any convention or standard leads to many inconsistencies and problems.
The question is thus: do you wish to see a cure or not? If you do not care or refuse to accept that a solution can be worked out, then absolute polarity should not be bandied about, and it becomes a non issue. If you do care, then an understanding must be established, and then listeners will be able to recognize and create a demand for better recordings.
I do not accept the attitude that constant grumbling about the issue but doing nothing is somehow OK. If it is of importance, then education is the key, and that will lead to a demand for change. Nebulous claims and statements, like recordings are 50-50 in nature, do nothing to aid the situation, as most readers will have no desire to create change, having little to reference their listening preferences to. I find it imperative to have lists of recordings in one polarity as compared to others in another. That gives everyone a reference point from which to start.
Stu
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: