In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 16:20:50:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - unclestu52 18:30:32 07/31/07 (38)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 19:56:03 07/31/07 (19)
- This very problem was fingered as a culprit in The Wood Effect (1988). - clarkjohnsen 10:14:16 08/01/07 (0)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - unclestu52 20:48:42 07/31/07 (17)
- RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 22:29:17 07/31/07 (16)
- Usually inverting the polarity - unclestu52 01:36:44 08/01/07 (15)
- RE: Usually inverting the polarity - rick_m 07:58:41 08/01/07 (14)
- See how "they" have been messing with you? Just as with polarity! nt - clarkjohnsen 10:17:21 08/01/07 (13)
- Still waiting to know who "they" are.... -nt - rick_m 11:56:28 08/02/07 (5)
- "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - clarkjohnsen 12:00:03 08/02/07 (4)
- I'm confused. I thought "Them" was Van Morrison's old band? -nt - Posy Rorer 22:05:26 08/02/07 (1)
- Them too. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:26:25 08/03/07 (0)
- RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - rick_m 13:10:05 08/02/07 (1)
- It's a wretched movie indeed, but highly informative. I'm with you on The Simpsons. In fact... - clarkjohnsen 07:20:48 08/03/07 (0)
- Actually, I don't see... - rick_m 11:33:23 08/01/07 (6)
- Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - clarkjohnsen 11:41:59 08/01/07 (5)
- RE: Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - rick_m 13:50:21 08/01/07 (4)
- What you say, was already well-known back in the Seventies and Eighties. - clarkjohnsen 08:43:08 08/02/07 (3)
- What WASN'T covered in 'The Wood Effect'? - rick_m 10:11:00 08/02/07 (2)
- Answer: What WAS, was anything and everything to do with polarity. - clarkjohnsen 10:34:21 08/02/07 (1)
- LOL!!!!! - unclestu52 15:02:22 09/16/07 (0)
- RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - Posy Rorer 19:21:55 07/31/07 (17)
- A few observations on your observations - clarkjohnsen 10:10:22 08/01/07 (12)
- It is good to know - unclestu52 10:41:13 08/01/07 (11)
- RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 11:34:27 08/01/07 (10)
- RE: It is good to know - unclestu52 13:45:05 08/01/07 (9)
- RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 22:25:56 08/01/07 (8)
- The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT... - clarkjohnsen 09:00:01 08/02/07 (6)
- ex nihilo nihil fit - unclestu52 13:48:45 08/02/07 (5)
- aut concilio aut ense - Posy Rorer 22:57:11 08/02/07 (4)
- Yes; now you see what I mean. Good try, though, and thanks, but he's irredeemable. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:23:26 08/03/07 (2)
- The Clark sidestep.... - unclestu52 12:14:37 08/03/07 (0)
- Mind you, I added that before I had read his attempt at an indictment of me below. Lordy!! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:25:41 08/03/07 (0)
- My apologies for having - unclestu52 00:48:34 08/03/07 (0)
- Well, I am glad - unclestu52 22:38:26 08/01/07 (0)
- Did you know.... - unclestu52 19:51:37 07/31/07 (3)
- RE: Did you know.... - Posy Rorer 21:44:17 07/31/07 (2)
- "isn't the order of polarity locked into the recording?" No! - clarkjohnsen 11:35:43 08/01/07 (0)
- RE: Did you know.... - unclestu52 01:11:21 08/01/07 (0)