In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 19:21:55:
>>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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)