|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.73.6.38
In Reply to: You avoid substantiating your claims. You appear to be either a fraud or a shill for an as yet unannounced product. posted by Ted Smith on December 30, 2006 at 21:53:00:
You ain't that far off...
Follow Ups:
Although the symptom is "unnacceptable sound" in people's digital playback, and it seems like George's latest product might be the magic bullet, the nature of the alleged problem and the solution seem too vague. A black hole. More like a Band-Aid than a real solution.The problem is, plain and simple, that vast majority of digital playback products just plain stink. (The recordings too, but the feedback for optimizing recording quality is often the playback.)
And the designers of digital audio products mostly don't have a clue, so instead of technology advancing, it's becoming more and more convoluted. (I also think this why digital playback performance does not correlate much to price- What designers think is better to warrant added expense may not in actuality be better.)
This is why most of my personal playback products are of 1990s vintage, where I think the level of digital playback hit its peak. There is good sounding digital out there, but mostly from that time period.
I think what George is doing is well-intentioned (in spite of this fetish with absolute polarity), and maybe even valuable, in regard to the public awareness that there is a fundamental problem with digital audio playback, which we still don't truly understand.
I'd be happy to review George's new product, but I don't have an urge to try it where I'd be willing to send money to do so. Because from a technical perspective, it's just another application based on mere faith and an impression of improved sonics. And because a ringing first-impression does not necessarily equate to real improvement (an audiophile habit that hits most of us), and the lack of fundamental understanding of the science associated with the new application, the new technology could in reality introduce a new problem instead of a real solution. (Its worst form is where it impacts the products themselves, resulting in big setbacks to the advancement of audio. dCS' introduction of asynchronous sample-rate conversion, with the assistance of an audio press salivating over the notion of "breakthrough" technology, has done exactly that.)
And worst of all, whenver such products are introduced, the perception of a possible solution just around the corner only perpetuates the real problem. Maybe in time, after we realize after all these "breakthroughs" never seem to solve the problems of digital audio playback, we'll finally realize the problem is at its core. Affecting just about every product that has ever been marketed, to varying degrees. The digital audio chips themselves. And until we get a true grasp of the problem (we're getting there, in spite of the digressions), we will not be able to provide proper feedback to those responsible for the core design (the chip manufacturers), so they can apply tangible improvements to their products, which would equate to real improvements in our end products.
I can understand where you're coming from. However, the problem is two fold, in my experience.
The first is that many if not most of the transducers used have mixed polarities, or at the very least, severe timing problems between drivers. That simple issue clouds the perception of most listeners. There are polarity and time aligned designs on the market, but they are not universal. Price has no bearing on their design, BTW.
The second is the recording producers. Recordings are often deliberately recorded with mixed polarity. The Aphex Aural Exciter used by such singers (it is a voice synthesizer) as Linda Ronstadt, Neil Diamond, Barbara Streisand inverts polarity and adds a bit of EQ. Listen to Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound". All he does is to invert the polarity of the background instruments in relation to the singers.
Between the speaker designers and the recording producers, the results are chaotic. With speaker designers, you would think that if perfection and accuracy were the true goal, speaker designs would converge at a certain price point.
The chips are not the problem. The problems lie at both ends of the audio spectrum.Of course your opinions and experiences may differ....
I haven't announced a new product yet but I'm having a prototype PerfectPolarizer™ built that may turn into a real product that will allow the listner to remotely control polarity at line level in both the analog and digital domain as well as do A-B or A-B-X double blind testing of components, polarity, some additional unusual but useful functions.George S. Louis, Perfect Polarity Pundit™
What's the connection between polarity claims and a testimonial on a service for performing miracles?
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: