I do, if that study impacts the amplifier design in a tangilbe way (which is not clear here), though I find all this pretty vague, especially when compared to some of the cleary psycyoacoustic effects that have been explored in the HT and digital realms. And it's interesting that ten years later he seemed to think this sort of research was in the future. A bad translation perhaps.
Happy to know that your confusion was due to a bad translation.
Forgive me to come back with F. Toole, but you will never find in stereo anything so "clear" as you find in HT. It was one of the reasons of his disappointment with the lack of success of surround sound in the sound industry. See "Science at the Service of Art".
Sometimes I feel that you would be much happier debating in the comfortable predictability of surround systems - as some of our members do. But as the music we enjoy shows in stereo, such a flawed system, we have to disagree a lot!
You are not going to get where you want to go with just stereo. Even if a more linear device was put into production it would not reach the pinnacle. Vacuum tubes,transistors and FET's are all flawed. That doesn't even address the limitations of 2 speakers.
You posted while I was composing the previous post - yes, in stereo our brains must do all the extra work to help the sound engineers and the equipment designers.
You posted while I was composing the previous post - yes, in stereo our brains must do all the extra work to help the sound engineers and the equipment designers.
Chaos Theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) suggests that loop negative feedback destabilizes audio circuits (the formula for feedback is the same as a classic Chaotic system). This results in 'bifurcation' which we audiophiles call 'distortion'. Norman Crowhurst graphed the Strange Attractor some years before the branch of science was actually recognized. I can go into this in greater depth but it might be a topic for another thread.
Happy to know that your confusion was due to a bad translation.
Forgive me to come back with F. Toole, but you will never find in stereo anything so "clear" as you find in HT. It was one of the reasons of his disappointment with the lack of success of surround sound in the sound industry. See "Science at the Service of Art".
Sometimes I feel that you would be much happier debating in the comfortable predictability of surround systems - as some of our members do. But as the music we enjoy shows in stereo, such a flawed system, we have to disagree a lot!
I'm not at all sure it was. The Lamm statement that seemed to put the use of psychoacoustic research for amp development in future tense was not at al ambiguous. The statements from 10 years earlier in which he referred to psychoacoustic and electro mechanical modeling in the development of his amplifiers were extremely vague. Assuming the contradiction was due to a mistranslation of the more recent statement requires a lot of benefit of the doubt.
I have little interest in surround sound because of the scarcity of good software available. If the industry was busy remastering all the great live albums in surround to create a concert hall-like ambience, I'd be making the investment. Instead, it seems to be investing in assaulting me with firearm sound effects and puting a different Eagle in each speaker in a circle around me. I find neither even remotely interesting.
I don't know. The company essentially went under and that product never worked reliably. So not sure where it ended.
I have read an argument against such a thing and that is, the talent that approved the content for release, listened to it at varying volumes without such an EQ correction. Therefore, if we apply it, we would be listening to something else...
There is a group of members here who make what I think are pretty wild, unsubstantiated claims that amount to wish-fullfillment on the part of hobbyists and BS on the part of designers/manufacturers. I find that asking questions is a much gentler and more polite way to challenge those claims than shaking my finger at them. I do hope they will answer those questions. I don't expect to have to disprove their claims, as they are their claims, not mine. The current example is micro's assertion that Lamm and Pass design with psychoacoustics in mind and have talked about it on the internet in many interviews. The first one I found, less than a year old, contradicted that assertion. His assertion, not mine. If you think it is unreasonable or unfair of me to expect him to support his assertion; that asking for that support makes it my point to prove, well, we'll just have to disagree again. We should be pretty good at it by now.
That is just downright arrogant and condescending. Substantiated? If JJ sent you the script for 320mbps MP3 coding what would you do with it? If Lamm sent you his model, what would you do with it? Give me a break. You'd still be listening for the results because you, me and the vast majority of consumers are not proficient enough to challenge the math in this field even if we had the darned things in our hands. Oh, and yeah, audio blind tests are STILL and always will be LISTENING tests.
What you seem to be looking for is a universal condition. I joke about it a lot so I'll just get right to it. You won't find a universal model. Biology and Environment will see to that. What you will find are models that are "better" or "worse" determined statistically.
That is just downright arrogant and condescending. Substantiated? If JJ sent you the script for 320mbps MP3 coding what would you do with it? If Lamm sent you his model, what would you do with it? Give me a break. You'd still be listening for the results because you, me and the vast majority of consumers are not proficient enough to challenge the math in this field even if we had the darned things in our hands. Oh, and yeah, audio blind tests are STILL and always will be LISTENING tests.
What you seem to be looking for is a universal condition. I joke about it a lot so I'll just get right to it. You won't find a universal model. Biology and Environment will see to that. What you will find are models that are "better" or "worse" determined statistically.
Arrogant and condescending? Perhaps. It is also the way I see it. The rest of your post doesn't connect in any way ican't relate to are you saying I need to know the math behind an mp3 to listen to it? I'm not following you.
Did you miss the word substantiated? It was your demand of their claims. It also ties in to your earlier posts based on "results" you as an individual use as a basis.
My point is simple. They could give you everything their test results, their models, their code, their schematics and you'd still be none the wiser for it. I know, trust your ears blah, blah, blah. Do it blind if you like but even you know, that in the end given our limitations that that is the square you and most of us will land on anyway. You'll either like it or you won't. Not a good statistical indicator of the population but if you are a population of one, gee that's 100%!
Did you miss the word substantiated? It was your demand of their claims. It also ties in to your earlier posts based on "results" you as an individual use as a basis.
My point is simple. They could give you everything their test results, their models, their code, their schematics and you'd still be none the wiser for it. I know, trust your ears blah, blah, blah. Do it blind if you like but even you know, that in the end given our limitations that that is the square you and most of us will land on anyway. You'll either like it or you won't. Not a good statistical indicator of the population but if you are a population of one, gee that's 100%!
And for the hundredth time, I'm good with all if that if what is being claimed is a preference, or great sound or a terrific listening experience. But the few I'm referring to are not satisfied with that. They consistently insist that their choice is the superior one and that those who disagree, for any number of reasons, are unable to discriminate well enough to recognize the clear superiority of their choices. And occasionally? They claim stuff that is just bat guano crazy. So...arrogance?
And for the hundredth time, I'm good with all if that if what is being claimed is a preference, or great sound or a terrific listening experience. But the few I'm referring to are not satisfied with that. They consistently insist that their choice is the superior one and that those who disagree, for any number of reasons, are unable to discriminate well enough to recognize the clear superiority of their choices. And occasionally? They claim stuff that is just bat guano crazy. So...arrogance?
For the record, I agree with Jack. Whether you choose to believe Victor Lamm when he says that he has figured out a model for how the human ear perceives sound quality and builds his amps, preamps, and phono stages to mirror the model that he developed, I would have thought you would have found a kindred soul with an engineer that says once he has measured his circuit and he is happy with the measurements that he doesn't even need to listen to it. You always talk about the importance of measurements, DBTs, and expectation bias to the point where you are starting to sound like a broken record that makes some people (like me) feel like I'm stuck in Ground Hog day mode when I read your posts. Your accusatory tone has also been turned up to a Spinal Tap "11" on the volume scale lately IMO. But hey, maybe I'm the only one that feels that way.
And for the hundredth time, I'm good with all if that if what is being claimed is a preference, or great sound or a terrific listening experience. But the few I'm referring to are not satisfied with that. They consistently insist that their choice is the superior one and that those who disagree, for any number of reasons, are unable to discriminate well enough to recognize the clear superiority of their choices. And occasionally? They claim stuff that is just bat guano crazy. So...arrogance?
Yes, those few are really horrible people. Some of them even pretend that headphone listening is not good enough to fully appreciate a stereo recording or the equipment playing it ...
And for the hundredth time, I'm good with all if that if what is being claimed is a preference, or great sound or a terrific listening experience. But the few I'm referring to are not satisfied with that. They consistently insist that their choice is the superior one and that those who disagree, for any number of reasons, are unable to discriminate well enough to recognize the clear superiority of their choices. And occasionally? They claim stuff that is just bat guano crazy. So...arrogance?
And for the hundredth time, I'm good with all if that if what is being claimed is a preference, or great sound or a terrific listening experience. But the few I'm referring to are not satisfied with that. They consistently insist that their choice is the superior one and that those who disagree, for any number of reasons, are unable to discriminate well enough to recognize the clear superiority of their choices. And occasionally? They claim stuff that is just bat guano crazy. So...arrogance?
The moment you accused that unnamed group of members here of wish fulfillment and accused manufacturers of BS, you made your own claim. So the shoe is on the other foot. Prove it.
The moment you accused that unnamed group of members here of wish fulfillment and accused manufacturers of BS, you made your own claim. So the shoe is on the other foot. Prove it.
That would be inaccurate, as I was pretty clearly expressing my opinion, not making a claim --
There is a group of members here who make what I think are pretty wild, unsubstantiated claims that amount to wish-fullfillment on the part of hobbyists and BS on the part of designers/manufacturers
But if you want unsubstantiated claims you've got one every time anyone has said vinyl is more natural or life like or closer to the original event. Happens so often it is hardly noticed anymore. A rarer, more dramatic example? Remember the conversation about vertical imaging? Remember the folks making the argument that they were getting discreet, vertical placement of instruments and voices? From stereo? How would you like your proof of that unsubstantiated claim? You want me to provide proof that stereo is two horizontal channels?
So whenever I say I think and feel like vinyl is more lifelike, am I making an unsubstantiated claim amounting to wish fulfillment? I ask because I've said this before. Lotsa times.
I remember that thread well but I do not recall anybody ever saying that they were getting DISCREET vertical placement. Phantom yes, discreet no. What they were saying was that they were localizing sound events higher than the tweeters. A bunch of guys said that what these guys were saying was impossible and that they were delusional until the .edu links on psychoacoustic studies started to pile up. Then the raunchy pictures that were eventually deleted started piling up too. LOL.
You have to remember that perspectives differ Tim. As a musician your aesthetic is based on being in there with the band as opposed to people whose perspectives are based on being in the audience. As a result you like a ratio of higher direct vs reflected sound. That is cool but what sounds "real" to you doesn't necessarily translate to what sounds "real" to others.
Chaos Theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) suggests that loop negative feedback destabilizes audio circuits (the formula for feedback is the same as a classic Chaotic system).
The level of misapplication of mathematics here is such that I hardly know where to start. Control systems theory applies here, and that shows clearly what well-executed negative feedback does. Note 'well-executed" is a condition in any application.
I don't know. The company essentially went under and that product never worked reliably. So not sure where it ended.
I have read an argument against such a thing and that is, the talent that approved the content for release, listened to it at varying volumes without such an EQ correction. Therefore, if we apply it, we would be listening to something else...
The real problem is that the capture of the direct signal from the loudspeakers must be flawless, and the loudspeakers must have very, very good power response as well as direct response, if this is to have a chance of working well. Easier done in headphones.
Oh, and a loudness button doesn't even work at one volume control setting, because varying signal spectrum makes it wrong for all but a terribly limited variety of inputs.
