|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.92.120
In Reply to: RE: The acoustic wavefront posted by Inmate51 on September 03, 2014 at 10:21:36
Yes, and why fuss over a thing if it is not perceivable... TO YOU?One of the first things we need to do as audiophiles, IMO is to listen. Listen, in order to find out what it is that matters to YOU, to your ears. Don't take anyone else's word, don't worry about that which is theoretically "correct". What sounds best and most realistic to you?
*Listen*, and *Do*...
If doing whatever it takes to satisfy our own ears is not one of the primary goals of this hobby, then why would any of us want to have anything to do with it?
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14Follow Ups:
Firstly, thanks for quietly correcting my misspelling of "perceivable".
However, with regard to sound, you're on the wrong track. Whether or not the polarity of a reproduced sound is audible to a particular individual isn't the question.
As I wrote, this issue has been studied in-depth.
Reproducing an acoustic waveform correctly, with regard to polarity, is the more desirable approach. This is clear.
Subjective preference by a particular individual is an entirely different matter.
I trust that my ears will tell me which track to follow. I'm going to continue listening, it's the only way.I agree that "reproducing an acoustic waveform correctly, with regard to polarity,..." would SEEM to be the desirable approach. It all makes such perfect sense. The problem is that the limitations of loudspeaker design prevent the perfectly sensible thing from being *translated* into a perfect design statement.
It's not that our theories are wrong, the problem is that reality prevents us from implementing our theories. We all know about the many different things that a loudspeaker should or must to do in order to sound realistic. Can we unanimously agree that there is even one loudspeaker design that does everything right? One that sounds perfectly realistic to everyone? No, we cannot. We DO know something about which types of loudspeakers most listeners seem to prefer, however, and what is *known* seems to match what my own personal listening experience has revealed to ME so far...
Regarding "perfect polarity" and it's relation to *practical implementation*, it might be wise to remember what has already been said on the subjects:
"The advocates of accurate waveform reproduction... are in a particularly awkward situation. IN SPITE OF THE CONSIDERABLE ENGINEERING APPEAL OF THIS CONCEPT, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor... the effects of phase are clearly subordinate to amplitude response." - Floyd Toole, 1986
"... all studies have shown that there is a HIERARCHY OF PERFORMANCE... Flatness and smoothness of amplitude response and a well-controlled and even radiation pattern are primary... a speaker that gets those wrong in favor of being able to reproduce transient waveforms correctly will not produce sound quality that listeners prefer." - John Atkinson, 2014
"As you can see from the measurements... it's performance graphically illustrated THE RESPONSE AND DISPERSION PROBLEMS YOU CAN GET BY FOCUSING ON THE TIME DOMAIN BEHAVIOR." - John Atkinson, 2014 (referring to his review of a well known time/phase "correct" speaker design)
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14
When quoting who are these test subjects? Some one picked off the street? Musicians? IIRC O'Toole used toronto students not necessarily serious listeners.
As to the practicality:well with a super computer in a lap top these days, with the advances in materials like carbon fiber, kevlar, nomex, etc not to mention in the rare earth magnets they can't design a phase coherent transducer? I think you better re examine your suppositions
I think that I have examined and re-examined my "suppositions". In addition, I've been using my ears. The question is, have you been doing these things? I have my doubts that you have been.
Despite all of the "advances" you list above and despite your optimistic attitude, I notice that you have not named one single "phase coherent transducer" produced by these technological "advances" that has successfully combines every desirable sonic characteristic in proper balance - AND IS THOUGHT OF AS SUCH BY A MAJORITY OF LISTENERS, be they "serious listeners" (burp!) or otherwise. So, do you have any brand names or facts to present, or is this just more colorful theorizing and wishful thinking from Unclestu?As if simply creating a "phase coherent transducer" was a desirable goal...
Creating a time/phase coherent transducer that does not compromise more highly regarded aspects of speaker performance might be a desirable and worthy goal - for those who claim to be able to hear the effects of "incoherence", at least.
Also, show me one study proving or even implying that your so-called "serious listeners" can hear any better than young, healthy college students. You can't? I didn't think so...
More smoke and mirrors from Unclestu, I guess.
Edits: 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/03/14 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: