[[email protected]]

On May 4, 9:57*am, wrote:
On May 4, 11:00*am, wrote:


On May 3, 8:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:

On Sun, 3 May 2009 17:11:39 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

What exactly are "accurate" speakers? It seems you are building an
argument on a mythological creature that is probably not something
everyone would agree on.

I would think that an accurate loudspeaker would be one which faithfully
reproduces the waveform with which it is fed. The extent to which any
loudspeaker accomplishes that goal is a measure of its accuracy.

A loudspeaker is fed an electrical signal that has only one dimension
in time. You can define any electrical signal in audio by time and
amplitude. When a speaker converts that signal to a sound wave it does
so into a three dimensional sound space. so how does one determine
which speaker has the most "accurate four dimensional wavefrom when
using a two dimensional waveform as a reference?

Sonnova's definition of accuracy is woefully
incomplete, to be sure. That such simple
definitions are inadequate is something that's
been known to acousticians and phyiscists for
a very long time.

But, by the same token, your objections are
based on some misunderstandings of that physics.

First, to get one step closer to a reasonable
definiiton of "electrocacoustic accuracy," you
must specify that the transducer will reproduce
an instantaneous sound level pressure that is
a direct linear function of its instantaneous
electrical input to within the specified tolerances
in a specific region of space positioned relative to
a reference axis as defined by the manufacturer of
the transducer.

* *Oh, by the way, this is, in essence, the way
* *agreed upon standards such as IEC 60268-10
* *deal with the problem.

There's clearly more to specify, but it deals with
the major objections raised.

However, those objects, as I mentioned, are
flawed, in that the reference position, while it
is in three dimensional space, to me (correct
me if I am mistaken) seems to imply there's
more information in the signal than simply its
instantaneous voltage (or, once transduced)
pressure vs time, such as directional information.

I was trying to say just the opposite. The signal is just a measure of
amplitude and time. It is essentially a two dimensional wave from. But
when the speaker transcribes that signal it does so into a three
dimensional space so that wave form has to have dimensions that simply
are not present in the electrical signal. So it makes it difficult to
use a waveform that exists in two dimensions to measure the accuracy
of a waveform that exists in four dimensions.


And the problem is simply this: there is NO instrinsic
directional information of ANY kind in a stereo
recording. Microphones convert instantaneous sound
pressure into instantaneous voltage. And sound
pressure contains NO directional information: it
is simply the sound pressure ata point in time and
space. Period.

As a corollary, that point on the reference access,
where that sound pressure is supposed to be
reproduced to one degree of accuracy or another,
well, the sound pressure there is an equally vectorless
quantity.

Stereo does not make it much better: the very physics
of the process prevent any reasonably accurate encoding
of ANYTHING other than the instantaneous conversion
of vectorless sound pressure into vectorless voltage and,
eventually, back again.

The inability of stereo to capture any true directional
or spacial cues was demonstrated rather soundly
well over a half century ago at Bell Labs, and no
amount of protestation and vigorous claims from
the high-end audio community or from big manufacturers
living on mountaintops have demonstrated otherwise.

Stereo is one big friggin' auditory illusion, everybody
who has ANY experience in the field knows that.
It's an illusion: it's smoke and mirrors and requires
the suspension of objective sensory-driven skeptisim
to work. Get over it and move on.

That is exactly what I have been saying. It's an aural illusion.
whatever makes for a better illusion is what I want. I don't care if
it happens to by greater accuracy or not in each link in the chain or
recording and playback.

[quoted text deleted -- deb]