In Reply to: The point... posted by unclestu on August 30, 2014 at 14:45:02:
That sentence underlines my point: Why screw up the playback? YOU are the one who might advocate screwing up the playback, as far as I can tell...If I were to agree with everything you just said it would probably mean that I was in the habit of trying to listen through an *IDEALISTIC MENTAL CONSTRUCT*, rather than *DIRECTLY WITH MY EARS*. I suspect that you are trying to do the former rather than the latter. But, of course, I can't be sure.
Not that the issue of "perfect polarity" matters all that much, since most of the evidence shows that people perceive little difference between perfect and imperfect. Assuming that there are those who can perceive it, the issue remains moot because there aren't that many perfect recordings around. It's hard to justify being very overly concerned about perfect polarity. There's "a bigger fish to fry.", as they say.
It may be true that "nothing in real life using acoustical instrumentation is inverted in absolute polarity" but we are not talking about real life, we are talking about the *artificial reproduction of a real life event, and/or about that which translates into the most realistic semblance of real life within THAT context*.
The most realistic sounding speakers are not going to be the ones with the most "perfect polarity" UNLESS that pair of speakers also displays the best possible amplitude response and the most favorable dispersion characteristics, IMO. Find a pair of speakers that excels in all of these ways and we might have found the most realistic sounding speakers in the world, as far as I can tell. Please tell me which speakers are *the best* in all of the above ways and I'll do my best to go and audition them for myself.
Based upon my listening experience so far? All I can say is that I agree with many others who feel the same way as me. If anything needs to be sacrificed in a loudspeaker design it had better not be amplitude response and optimum dispersion characteristics. So far, my ears have told me that those are the things that matter most. Time/phase coherence seems to me to be the artificial frosting on the artificial cake, rather than the artificial spongy mass that makes up the majority of the *artificial cake*.
Edits: 08/30/14 08/30/14 08/31/14 08/31/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Why screw up the playback of what is supposed to be reality any further." - genungo 15:35:10 08/30/14 (16)
- Question: - unclestu 17:01:21 08/30/14 (15)
- RE: Question: - genungo 18:07:03 08/30/14 (14)
- Therein lies the big issue - unclestu 12:46:29 08/31/14 (13)
- RE: "... you are a brave man, because many would disagree, as obviously I am." - genungo 13:40:10 08/31/14 (12)
- hmmmm.. - unclestu 17:20:09 08/31/14 (11)
- RE: hmmmm.. - genungo 18:09:32 08/31/14 (10)
- The acoustic wavefront - Inmate51 10:21:36 09/03/14 (9)
- should be simple - unclestu 20:46:37 09/03/14 (3)
- The only thing simple... - genungo 10:14:09 09/04/14 (2)
- RE: The only thing simple... - Inmate51 13:07:50 09/04/14 (1)
- RE: "... doing our best to 'get it right'." - genungo 14:48:15 09/04/14 (0)
- RE: "Whether or not it is perceivable is another matter." - genungo 20:06:51 09/03/14 (4)
- RE: "Whether or not it is perceivable is another matter." - Inmate51 21:16:14 09/03/14 (3)
- RE: "However, with regard to sound, you're on the wrong track." - genungo 22:35:49 09/03/14 (2)
- ask yourself - unclestu 22:53:02 09/03/14 (1)
- RE: "I think you better re-examine your suppositions." - genungo 23:18:40 09/03/14 (0)