 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.203.68
In Reply to: Re: Different strokes posted by unclestu52 on November 11, 2006 at 14:11:11:
and Ralph Glasgal's ambiophonics rig. Naturally, both of them have excellent taste in the transducers they chose. :)rw
Follow Ups:
I was lucky to have the opportunity to chat with Ray for a while about his process. The recommended rear placement was 135 degrees off of dead center, with the front speakers set up in a normal stereo configuration. Ray bypasses all processing as you wouldn't have the faintest idea of how the recording engineer mixed in the rear channels or how much reverberance he placed in the recording. He records in discreet four channel mode.Admittedly his process will not work for many pop recordings, which use overlays of channels and over dubs to create certain effects. It does work well for classical and jazz which can and are often performed acoustically live.
The biggest problem with all processors is the variance in the recording techniques. Technically, one may have to adjust the parameters for every recording. I can not see any listener really doing that consistently.
Stu
...you would have sufficient training in mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering to do what I did, develop the transfer function which gives the relationship between the sound energy field generated at one place, a spot on a performing stage, and the resultant sound field at another, a seat in the audience. Once you do that and realize this relationship can be measured in the real world and duplicated electroacoustically, you will understand everything you need to know about how concert hall acoustics work and what is required to duplicate them at home. This is not a trick, not a gimmick, and nothing particularly unusual. It's a straghtforward problem most any engineer, certainly any electrical engineer with a bachelors degree from an accredited school in the United States and any physicist should easily be able to solve just as I did nearly 33 years ago. If you're not, then you can stick with your audiophile myths and deslusions that don't ever seem to work. 7.1 anyone?
you would have already marketed it and we would be mentioning your name along with Ray Dolby...or would we because the road in hifi is littered with supposed "surround" sound music attempts like quadrophonic, for example
I attempted this shortly after my patent was granted. Nobody of 20 major manufacturers was interested at the time. DSP was a way into the future. No one even wanted a demo. Then Yamaha's DSP-1 appeared. It meets the minimum criteria for a critical circuit in my invention. The fact that it originally sold for $900 and is lucky to get even $100 on E-bay today is testamony to the fact that there is little interest in it. Hardly surprising to me because as is typical of those interested in this audio product lines, most have far greater interest in running down the same blind dead end alleys and bashing their heads into the same imovable brick wall than they are in pursuing something somewhat more difficult that actually stands a chance of working. Want more proof? OK, I've written about the advantages of indirect firing tweeters for improving the sound of loudspeakers for years. It is nether difficult nor expensive but how many people have even tried it. Very few I'd bet. It's easier to go shopping for new expensive equipment which promises a holy grail than to actually experiment. It seems all of the red blood has gone out of the American male. He'd rather sit in front of a TV set, a computer, or a store bought audio system than actually use his hands and brains. Small wonder most of them are so fat.
But I understand why you don't.If you ever do, I'll get in line to hear it. Could be the first real paradigm shift in audio! Haven't heard of anything else that bears much more than a passing resemblance. Might be a little impractical for all but the biggest audio enthusiasts, which might explain why there was no interest before. I'm curious if that feeling might be different today.
Care to comment on BassNut's concern above? He doesn't seem overly fond of indirect firing tweeters. And what's more fun than a subjectivist arguing with an objectivist? Two objectivists arguing! Yeeeee-haaaaaa!!!! :)
> Small wonder most of them are so fat. <
Well, I have a fat head sometimes but I'm trying to cut down.
1983Alas, Yamaha stole his idea. Look what wonderful things they did with it. Perhaps we could see a pic of the Full Monty AR-9 cum tweeters / sweet 16 RS Minimus 7 arrangement instead.
rw
I'll have to look into the DSP-1 - just a little research to see what it's supposed to do.If Soundmind's system does what he says, it could certainly do the same with my preference in speakers. I'm only interested in the concept at this point.
you won't find much fat on me :). I am also a fan of the indiret firing tweeter. I am also a fan of dipole speakers in general, owning big planar speakers will do that to you.
all that BS has nothing at all to do with the ability of non-EEs to discern the qualities of hearing real music in a concert environment.It's a straghtforward problem most any engineer, certainly any electrical engineer with a bachelors degree from an accredited school in the United States and any physicist should easily be able to solve just as I did nearly 33 years ago.
And yet none of the solutions I've yet heard developed by said provide a more realistic presentation than a few high resolution systems in my experience. I'm willing to hear any and all successful attempts like the two mentioned.
Maybe one of these decades you will be able to get someone in the industry to take your handwaving and "genius" seriously. Best of luck to you. :)
rw
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
