[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

That's not it at all. Your problem is, and I have said this before. From
what
you have written, I have no confidence that you have even the slightest
clue
about what you are talking about.

That doesn't advance any argument whatsoever. What did I say to make you
feel that way? Argue the subject, if you are so knowledgeable.

But you aren't selling a product. You are "selling" a theory, that from
what
I have gleaned from you posts and your posted "white paper", you lack the
knowledge to actually be able to formulate.

AE, I don't think you have been able to follow this subject. I have said
nothing erroneous, or even all that controversial. I have explained in
greater detail what William Snow said, that stereo is a field-type system,
in which we attempt to reconstruct the fields that existed in the original.
The basic idea is that you place speakers around the room where you want the
sounds to come from. Have you heard about surround sound? Three speakers are
placed up front, arranged in geometrecally similar positions to the
positions of the instruments that were recorded. Surround speakers are
placed where ambient fields belong. Image Model Theory goes into greater
detail about the frontal soundstage, explaining how to arrange the radiation
pattern, room positioning, and reflective qualities of the walls to mimic
the spatial patterns of the original. The main point is that the spatial
qualities of speakers and rooms are audible, such as between corner horns
and MBLs or Quads pulled out from the walls. I suggest a model that you can
use to determine which arrangement is more realistic, that the answer to
what causes perceptual qualities of stereo does not come from the direct
sound alone, as has been thought by most writers in the past. I encourage
you to study auditory perspective theory from the standpoint of the total
horizontal acoustical situation, illustrated by what is called the image
model of the room and speakers. All of these things have been talked around
in the past, but not tied together into a cohesive theory to explain why
something sounds the way it does in more visual terms.

See if you can go over it all again and tell me anything I said that is
wrong.

Sure, people sell green pens and funny looking free-form wooden sculptures
that when placed in the listening space, supposedly tame the room. People
also sell digital clocks that "miraculously" clean up the power line, and
exotic wooden blocks that, when set on top of components make them sound
"better." And the gullible buy these things and convince themselves that
it
was money well spent. But people like me don't buy them because we know
that
they have no scientific basis behind them and that they not only don't
work,
they CANNOT work. Pretending that we don't know everything there is to
know
about sound as a basis for these magic nostrums, might fool the untutored,
but those of us with a solid background in engineering and physics simply
know better.

It might help if you could show a mathematical model of your "theories"
and I
encourage you to do so.

STOP IT! This is not mathematical! It is conceptual! You have just GOT to
get this material. Or at least talk to me so I can tell what step is missing
from my explanation.


OK, you stopped short again. I told about an experiment that I participated
in that helped answer Linkwitz's very basic questions, in which I was quite
successful.

Talk to me.

Gary Eickmeier

PS - suggestion, to throw the ball back into your court so you can
straighten me right out:

YOU tell ME what are the answers to Linkwitz's challenge questions. What is
the corrct radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustical
qualities for the greatest realism in the reproduction of the Auditory
Scene, or AS? Why? How do you know? Have you thought about it much before,
or do you think that "The Big Three" are not audible?