"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Like I said, reiterating endlessly, your personal "notions" about sound
does
nothing to help validate them into actual "theories". It's going to take
some
actual science back by some actual theoretical research. This means
quoting
peer-reviewed papers that are generally available, ideally with URL links.
so
they can be read in context by all interested parties.
OK, I am at the end of my communication rope here. Did I not send you my
paper on Image Model Theory? For others, it can be found at
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5825
In that paper I carefully laid out all of the arguments and listed the major
sources that support it. I would also recommend Floyd Toole's new book
"Sound Reproduction, The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and
Rooms." Of course there is no section in it on IMT, that is my contribution
and the subject of this thread, but there are many paragraphs and sections
in it that support what I have observed about sound in rooms. I bought it to
scan through it to see if it contained any answers to Linkwitz's questions
about The Big Three, but it did not directly answer what are the best
radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room treatment. It did, however,
support the very basic concept that room reflections are not only not evil
but are necessary for good sound.
Established texts such as Blauert, "Spatial Hearing," and K. Blair Benson's
Audio Engineering Manual can be consulted on summing localization, image
shift due to reflections, and psychoacoustics.
Nothing in my theory is contradicted in all of the sources I have read in
the past 30 years, but rather support it in various ways. What I was trying
to do in these threads is communicate some observations that I have found
that I consider so important as to constitute a new theory on how
stereophonic reproduction works. It is MY theory, supported by the indicated
texts, but not directly provable or quoted from existing sources because it
is new - it is MY theory, offered for your comments and interest to try and
help anyone interested get better sound. I ask you to not fight me on it,
but rather try and see where I am coming from, understand what I am saying,
think for yourself and try to withhold judgement based on your past
knowledge and experience - which experience most probably does not include
methods and techniques that I am suggesting because of the unusual and
surprising nature of my answers to The Big Three.
I am not the enemy, I am as enthusiastic about audio as you are, and I
continue to study and learn more by doing some recording and further study
in texts and with you guys.
This whole thread is an interesting communication problem, another subject
near and dear to my heart - i.e., what is so hard to understand about all
this. Am I leaving something out, is it the sender or the receiver of the
info that is the problem, what can I do to improve my paper, etc etc. I
realize that all of the blather on usenet is not going to convince anyone of
anything as quickly as a few demonstrations, but here I am in sunny Florida
and you are out there. Ah well.
Sigh.
Gary Eickmeier