Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default From some very unique minds

Barkingspyder wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


Thanks for the mention Barking, but no, these are not all that
unique minds.


Your opinion, I obviously don't share.


First of all, when you say "I," I have no idea who you are.

Pierce will probably be next up to bat with a dissertation on the
unsuitability of cardboard for speakers, and the Duevel omnis are
sort of a
step in the right direction, but I would like to take on Wilson
Audio.


Not being a mind reader I would not care to venture a guess as to
what Mr. Pierce might say.


It was just a joke about his dissertation on Sonotubes, which went way off
the deep end in my really humble opinion.


Watch the video - what a totally clueless "design" team!
By now you all may know my spiel - that there is no theory for how
to approach loudspeaker
design in the quest for the realistic reproduction of auditory
perspective -
stereo theory. I can stand here and tell all who will listen that
what we
hear are the Big Three - radiation pattern, room positioning, and
acoustical qualities of the room, and they will not hear me, as if I
am ****ing in the
wind.


Not following these discussions for several years, I can't say why,
but perhaps it's because these things are a given, or because there
are many times when you have been criticized for what appears to be a
lack of understanding. Maybe the people you expect to talk on these
subject prefer to not engage. It seems there are 2 kinds of people
here, those who are actual experts in the field of audio electronics
and those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Actually there
are at least 3 kinds, (assuming I'm not the only one)the 3rd kind are
the ones who realize how little they know and wait for the experts to
hold forth so they can soak up what they have to say.

I find it best to not be confrontational most of the time.


It's fascinating to me how many in audio think that they need to rely on
"experts" rather than think for themselves. This means if any new ideas come
along, they will be automatically rejected because it isn't what the
"experts" thought before. This point is important enough for me to quote
Amar Bose's opening paragraph in his famous presentation in Technology
Review in 1973:

"If the field of sound recording and reproduction didn't have so many
experts - many of htem not in the discipline of acoustics - I could confine
myself to a straightforward technical presentation of our research. But this
field is one in which everybody knows something and almost everybody has
some interest and some preconceived ideas. If I just made a technical
presentation, some of the results would be so controversial that unless one
also knew how they were developed, the mismatch between the preconception
and the results would be severe. So I'll try to go through the years the
years from '56 to the present. In this manner, I think I can present the
developments in in the way they occurred to us. The sequence will be
evident: and then when I arrive at some results that are quite
controversial, at least you will know how they came about."

Most of you probably will not have read that paper, or would have
pooh-poohed it out of hand because you don't like the 901 speaker. I had to
read it about 15 times before I "got it." The part about listening to the
binaural recording on headphones and then switching the signal to mono was
the most difficult for me, to see what he was getting at. The statement was
that most subjects who went through that simple experiment said something
like, when I switch it to mono all of the evils of my hi fi return. That was
a "facepalm" moment that indicated that the reproduction problem was a
spatial problem.

The project as a whole and its report was perhaps the first time that what
he called "difference testing" was used in audio research. This means double
blind testing for audibility of a factor under consideration, as opposed to
relying on measurement and specs. The years from '56 to '65 were spent
disproving the "perfect point source" legend as the paradigm of perfection
that had been thought by the experts. It was then that they went into the
concert hall with their binaural recordings etc etc to begin the new tack.
To me, the most inspiring and important sentence in all audio writing that I
have ever encountered was this one from "Part Two: Spatial and Temporal
Dimenstions":

"There must be other parameters important to hearing that had not yet been
considered in speaker design."

In a word, most of the experts that you outline as having put me in my place
have not gone beyond 1965, and are still fooling around with crossovers and
spikes and stiffness of enclosures and driver materials and anything and
everything that has nothing to do with audibility, and not even considering
the most audible aspect of speaker design, which is radiation pattern.

THAT is why my exhortation to someone to please explain to me why this
Wilson team of experts didn't even mention the first two of The Big Three,
which are the most audible aspects of speakers and rooms.

When I saw the video and heard him say he memorizes the sound, I
thought to myself "SHEESH you should know better." I did lke the
notion of using the various rooms, and I assume at some point they do
some kind of anechoic testing. I do not think their speakers are
monstrosities, the ones I've heard sound good, but massively
overpriced.


Yes - that is correct sir!


I'm at the end of my 'splainin rope. Please either
read my Image Model Theory paper or go back through the What We Can
Hear and Mind Stretchers
threads.

Gary Eickmeier


I've read the mind stretchers thread and I understand you are
frustrated, but just like the thread about cylindrical subwoofers, to
which you were the first to respond, you seem to get a great deal
wrong.


It's not enough to state that someone got it all wrong; you should tell why
you think that.

The attitude doesn't help. I don't know what your backround
is, so I don't know if you are an EE or just a very knowledgable
hobbyist. I do know that when Dick Pierce speaks it is wise to
listen. If you want to converse with anyone better to be cordial and
ask rather than pontificate, especially when the person you want
information from is somebody with Mr. Pierce's CV. Obviously there
are many different ideas about audio nirvana and how to achieve it.


I studied Industrial Design in college (BFA), but that has nothing to do
with this DISCUSSION about audio; STOP relying on the CV and listen to what
I am saying and evaluate for yourself. I'm just begging you. And if you're
so concerned with CV, and going to take me to task, then you should stop
hiding behind a pseudonym and talk to me like a man.

My obsession with the spatial nature of sound began with a discovery about
the proper positioning of my 901s that led to a letter to Bose and a call
from him and subsequent visit to the factory to talk with his chief engineer
who introduced me to the method of image modeling to study reflected sound
patterns. Since then I have studied the subject intensely for over 30 years
now, because what I learned is still at odds with what most engineers think
about loudspeaker design, so I keep trying to disprove myself but cannot.
Absolutely everything I have read reinforces my IMT, and speaker demos that
I have attended reinforce it to an alarming extent, making it all the more
important that I communicate what is going on with the model to others.

Your obsession with Bose doesn't cut it with me. I heard 901's and
was not as impressed with that as I was with Carver's demo recording
of sonic holography. Worst of all for me the 901's had horrible
mushy bass. Like what you want, it's fine with me. You do seem to
have a problem getting all the facts you know into some sort of
cogency.


I disn't say a WORD about Bose 901s in any of the writing that you are
referring to. If you insist on being sidetracked by your criticism of a
particular product, then my statement is this: I still use the Bose 901
speakers because they are still the only correctly designed speaker in the
world at present, or the closest to it. You have seen my corrections to the
design w. respect to radiation pattern in my papers, and as for the bass
response, I use a Velodyne F-1800 along with the two front and two rear
901s, and some extra side mounted direct radiators to get some aspects of
the surround sound more correct by ear, as well as a home made center
channel speaker which incorporates reflection in the design. My listening
room is 21 x 31 feet, just big enough for high fidelity use. Reflective at
the front end, with increasing diffusion and absorption as you go back, for
no slap echo.

As for getting all the facts I know into some sort of cogency, I have done
precisely that and organized it into a paper on the subject, which suggests
that the correct way to look at the reproduction problem is from the aspect
of relating the image model of the reproduction to that of the live sound.
This is a whole new way of looking at the problem and I can't seem to shock
anyone into considering it, for reasons they can't explain, just as you
can't. All most of them say is that I am not an expert, or I am all wrong,
or what are my CV, or am I an EE. STOP THAT. If you can't articulate your
objections to IMT, then get off the pot.

I do see you as someone who really does want to make improvements in
stereo (or whatever word you choose) and the whole listening
experience. I don't wish to come across as combative, I'm only
trying to convey my impressions based on what I've seen in the brief
time I've been back and my memories from previous years. Just try
and play nice. Ok back into the game. :-)


Yes, PLEASE back into the game. As for combative, Dr. Bose once told me that
one of his methods to get their attention in class at M.I.T. (Dr. Mark
Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students), was to "shock" them
with a seemingly outrageous statement that they will object to at first, and
try and argue with you about, and thus lead into the subject of the day. I
am no Amar Bose, but the same technique is called for here, if only it would
work some day.

TALK to me. From my paper:

"It is possible to make a drawing of the image model of musical instruments
in a concert hall or loudspeakers in a playback room. Image Model Theory,
then, can be stated as follows: The reproduction will be most like the real
thing when the image model of the reproduction soudfield comes as close as
possible to that of the original. This seemingly innocuous statement is in
fact a big change in the way we think about the process. Stereophonic sound
is seen as a large-scale, acoustical, field-type reproducing system in which
all sound fields present in the original are physically reconstructed in the
playback acoustic. The reproduction is seen as a 3-dimensional model of live
sound, as opposed to a wavefront or portaling process. The major change in
practice is that reflected sound is incorporated into the construction of
the stereo image."

I apologize for hijacking your thread. Can't help myself, after seeing that
ridiculous video of the Wilson stuff, which annoyed me to the extent you see
before you. Watts and Puppies and Sophias and WAMMs with all of the drivers
on the front of the box - dear God please make it stop.

Gary Eickmeier



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default From some very unique minds

On 7/23/2012 6:19 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Barkingspyder wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


snip
Watch the video - what a totally clueless "design" team!
By now you all may know my spiel - that there is no theory for how
to approach loudspeaker
design in the quest for the realistic reproduction of auditory
perspective -
stereo theory. I can stand here and tell all who will listen that
what we
hear are the Big Three - radiation pattern, room positioning, and
acoustical qualities of the room, and they will not hear me, as if I
am ****ing in the
wind.


How wet does one need to be before stopping seems the prudent path?

snip

I find it best to not be confrontational most of the time.


It's fascinating to me how many in audio think that they need to rely on
"experts" rather than think for themselves.


It's fascinating how you continue to insult people's intelligence, all
the while doggedly thinking that is a winning communication strategy.

This means if any new ideas come
along, they will be automatically rejected because it isn't what the
"experts" thought before. This point is important enough for me to quote
Amar Bose's opening paragraph in his famous presentation in Technology
Review in 1973:

"If the field of sound recording and reproduction didn't have so many
experts - many of htem not in the discipline of acoustics - I could confine
myself to a straightforward technical presentation of our research. But this
field is one in which everybody knows something and almost everybody has
some interest and some preconceived ideas. If I just made a technical
presentation, some of the results would be so controversial that unless one
also knew how they were developed, the mismatch between the preconception
and the results would be severe. So I'll try to go through the years the
years from '56 to the present. In this manner, I think I can present the
developments in in the way they occurred to us. The sequence will be
evident: and then when I arrive at some results that are quite
controversial, at least you will know how they came about."


This could well be another more circuitous way of saying "if you
understand the physics, you won't believe the hype I'm about to peddle".
He freely admits that his technical presentation, even with the
historical path laid bare, will be unconvincing (i.e. "quite
controversial"). If the theory and math were there, it would be
convincing - or at least worth investigating by *someone* other than him.

Most of you probably will not have read that paper, or would have
pooh-poohed it out of hand because you don't like the 901 speaker.


True, to many, from what I've heard and read. If the result of the
research is a product that sounds marginal at best, either the premise,
the engineering, the design, and or the construction - or all as
contributors - make studying the approach rather pointless. At least to me.

You remind me of an old friend who had a pair of Bose 501's. To him,
they were the height of fidelity. To me, the worst sounding speaker I
ever heard (that wasn't broken). There is no theory, no explanation, no
"image" that would change the fact that to me those 501's were
abominations, and to him Nirvana.

snip
"There must be other parameters important to hearing that had not yet been
considered in speaker design."


Perhaps he was recalling Hamlet?

In a word, most of the experts that you outline as having put me in my place
have not gone beyond 1965, and are still fooling around with crossovers and
spikes and stiffness of enclosures and driver materials and anything and
everything that has nothing to do with audibility, and not even considering
the most audible aspect of speaker design, which is radiation pattern.

THAT is why my exhortation to someone to please explain to me why this
Wilson team of experts didn't even mention the first two of The Big Three,
which are the most audible aspects of speakers and rooms.


Perhaps if you read anything about the Wilson design process you'd have
a better understanding. They do care about radiation patterns, and
design to help eliminate the comb filtering artifacts you find so
euphonic. But it's pretty silly to cite a marketing video for a 3rd
generation speaker as a comprehensive guide to their engineering philosophy.


When I saw the video and heard him say he memorizes the sound, I
thought to myself "SHEESH you should know better."


Actually, I think that is exactly what he does. He designs to reproduce
what he remembers (faulty though it be) of live performances. Not a way
for absolute accuracy to be sure, but a good way of achieving a speaker
that is voiced the way he personally thinks sounds "best" or as
producing the most "live" sound. If you have similar tastes, it'll work
for you as well.

I did lke the
notion of using the various rooms, and I assume at some point they do
some kind of anechoic testing. I do not think their speakers are
monstrosities, the ones I've heard sound good, but massively
overpriced.


What isn't massively overpriced in "high end audio"? I wouldn't say
that Wilson is breaking new trail in that respect; but the pack running
in front of them is pretty thin. I'd be hard pressed to justify paying
retail for their products.

snip

It's not enough to state that someone got it all wrong; you should tell why
you think that.


To quote; "go back through the What We Can Hear and Mind Stretchers
threads." I think you'll find a wealth of reason why folks would think
that.

snip
This is a whole new way of looking at the problem and I can't seem to shock
anyone into considering it, for reasons they can't explain, just as you
can't.


You bemoan the fact that no one can understand you, or they refuse to
listen, yet when reasons are given to you, or direct questions posed to
you, you simply ignore them. Saying "for reasons they can't explain" is
a false statement. To make it true, you have to modify it as "for
reasons they can't explain to my satisfaction and/or understanding".
They are not congruent statements. The latter is clearly a fools errand.

All most of them say is that I am not an expert, or I am all wrong,
or what are my CV, or am I an EE. STOP THAT.


Perhaps you've not noticed, but these repeated "STOP" and "STOP THAT"
tantrums isn't getting it done.

If you can't articulate your
objections to IMT, then get off the pot.


You're now a Moderator, eh? Agree with me or go home?

snip
I apologize for hijacking your thread. Can't help myself, after seeing that
ridiculous video of the Wilson stuff, which annoyed me to the extent you see
before you. Watts and Puppies and Sophias and WAMMs with all of the drivers
on the front of the box - dear God please make it stop.


They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people
spend big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs)
because they believe they sound great. Your self described "best
designed speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history.
Speakers are not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the
recordings they play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a
major role. At some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker
design choice - and the numbers don't lie when preference is the sole
criterion.

Go ahead - call this the "McDonalds argument" - you know where that will
lead.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default From some very unique minds

On 7/23/2012 6:19 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Barkingspyder wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


snip
Watch the video - what a totally clueless "design" team!
By now you all may know my spiel - that there is no theory for how
to approach loudspeaker
design in the quest for the realistic reproduction of auditory
perspective -
stereo theory. I can stand here and tell all who will listen that
what we
hear are the Big Three - radiation pattern, room positioning, and
acoustical qualities of the room, and they will not hear me, as if I
am ****ing in the
wind.


How wet does one need to be before stopping seems the prudent path?

snip

I find it best to not be confrontational most of the time.


It's fascinating to me how many in audio think that they need to rely on
"experts" rather than think for themselves.


It's fascinating how you continue to insult people's intelligence, all
the while doggedly thinking that is a winning communication strategy.

This means if any new ideas come
along, they will be automatically rejected because it isn't what the
"experts" thought before. This point is important enough for me to quote
Amar Bose's opening paragraph in his famous presentation in Technology
Review in 1973:

"If the field of sound recording and reproduction didn't have so many
experts - many of htem not in the discipline of acoustics - I could confine
myself to a straightforward technical presentation of our research. But this
field is one in which everybody knows something and almost everybody has
some interest and some preconceived ideas. If I just made a technical
presentation, some of the results would be so controversial that unless one
also knew how they were developed, the mismatch between the preconception
and the results would be severe. So I'll try to go through the years the
years from '56 to the present. In this manner, I think I can present the
developments in in the way they occurred to us. The sequence will be
evident: and then when I arrive at some results that are quite
controversial, at least you will know how they came about."


This could well be another more circuitous way of saying "if you
understand the physics, you won't believe the hype I'm about to peddle".
He freely admits that his technical presentation, even with the
historical path laid bare, will be unconvincing (i.e. "quite
controversial"). If the theory and math were there, it would be
convincing - or at least worth investigating by *someone* other than him.

Most of you probably will not have read that paper, or would have
pooh-poohed it out of hand because you don't like the 901 speaker.


True, to many, from what I've heard and read. If the result of the
research is a product that sounds marginal at best, either the premise,
the engineering, the design, and or the construction - or all as
contributors - make studying the approach rather pointless. At least to me.

You remind me of an old friend who had a pair of Bose 501's. To him,
they were the height of fidelity. To me, the worst sounding speaker I
ever heard (that wasn't broken). There is no theory, no explanation, no
"image" that would change the fact that to me those 501's were
abominations, and to him Nirvana.

snip
"There must be other parameters important to hearing that had not yet been
considered in speaker design."


Perhaps he was recalling Hamlet?

In a word, most of the experts that you outline as having put me in my place
have not gone beyond 1965, and are still fooling around with crossovers and
spikes and stiffness of enclosures and driver materials and anything and
everything that has nothing to do with audibility, and not even considering
the most audible aspect of speaker design, which is radiation pattern.

THAT is why my exhortation to someone to please explain to me why this
Wilson team of experts didn't even mention the first two of The Big Three,
which are the most audible aspects of speakers and rooms.


Perhaps if you read anything about the Wilson design process you'd have
a better understanding. They do care about radiation patterns, and
design to help eliminate the comb filtering artifacts you find so
euphonic. But it's pretty silly to cite a marketing video for a 3rd
generation speaker as a comprehensive guide to their engineering philosophy.


When I saw the video and heard him say he memorizes the sound, I
thought to myself "SHEESH you should know better."


Actually, I think that is exactly what he does. He designs to reproduce
what he remembers (faulty though it be) of live performances. Not a way
for absolute accuracy to be sure, but a good way of achieving a speaker
that is voiced the way he personally thinks sounds "best" or as
producing the most "live" sound. If you have similar tastes, it'll work
for you as well.

I did lke the
notion of using the various rooms, and I assume at some point they do
some kind of anechoic testing. I do not think their speakers are
monstrosities, the ones I've heard sound good, but massively
overpriced.


What isn't massively overpriced in "high end audio"? I wouldn't say
that Wilson is breaking new trail in that respect; but the pack running
in front of them is pretty thin. I'd be hard pressed to justify paying
retail for their products.

snip

It's not enough to state that someone got it all wrong; you should tell why
you think that.


To quote; "go back through the What We Can Hear and Mind Stretchers
threads." I think you'll find a wealth of reason why folks would think
that.

snip
This is a whole new way of looking at the problem and I can't seem to shock
anyone into considering it, for reasons they can't explain, just as you
can't.


You bemoan the fact that no one can understand you, or they refuse to
listen, yet when reasons are given to you, or direct questions posed to
you, you simply ignore them. Saying "for reasons they can't explain" is
a false statement. To make it true, you have to modify it as "for
reasons they can't explain to my satisfaction and/or understanding".
They are not congruent statements. The latter is clearly a fools errand.

All most of them say is that I am not an expert, or I am all wrong,
or what are my CV, or am I an EE. STOP THAT.


Perhaps you've not noticed, but these repeated "STOP" and "STOP THAT"
tantrums isn't getting it done.

If you can't articulate your
objections to IMT, then get off the pot.


You're now a Moderator, eh? Agree with me or go home?

snip
I apologize for hijacking your thread. Can't help myself, after seeing that
ridiculous video of the Wilson stuff, which annoyed me to the extent you see
before you. Watts and Puppies and Sophias and WAMMs with all of the drivers
on the front of the box - dear God please make it stop.


They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people
spend big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs)
because they believe they sound great. Your self described "best
designed speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history.
Speakers are not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the
recordings they play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a
major role. At some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker
design choice - and the numbers don't l ie when preference is the sole
criterion.

Go ahead - call this the "McDonalds argument" - you know where that will
lead.

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default From some very unique minds

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:19:32 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 7/23/2012 6:19 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Barkingspyder wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:33:42 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


snip
Watch the video - what a totally clueless "design" team!
By now you all may know my spiel - that there is no theory for how
to approach loudspeaker
design in the quest for the realistic reproduction of auditory
perspective -
stereo theory. I can stand here and tell all who will listen that
what we
hear are the Big Three - radiation pattern, room positioning, and
acoustical qualities of the room, and they will not hear me, as if I
am ****ing in the
wind.


How wet does one need to be before stopping seems the prudent path?

snip

I find it best to not be confrontational most of the time.


It's fascinating to me how many in audio think that they need to rely on
"experts" rather than think for themselves.


It's fascinating how you continue to insult people's intelligence, all
the while doggedly thinking that is a winning communication strategy.

This means if any new ideas come
along, they will be automatically rejected because it isn't what the
"experts" thought before. This point is important enough for me to quote
Amar Bose's opening paragraph in his famous presentation in Technology
Review in 1973:

"If the field of sound recording and reproduction didn't have so many
experts - many of htem not in the discipline of acoustics - I could confine
myself to a straightforward technical presentation of our research. But this
field is one in which everybody knows something and almost everybody has
some interest and some preconceived ideas. If I just made a technical
presentation, some of the results would be so controversial that unless one
also knew how they were developed, the mismatch between the preconception
and the results would be severe. So I'll try to go through the years the
years from '56 to the present. In this manner, I think I can present the
developments in in the way they occurred to us. The sequence will be
evident: and then when I arrive at some results that are quite
controversial, at least you will know how they came about."


This could well be another more circuitous way of saying "if you
understand the physics, you won't believe the hype I'm about to peddle".
He freely admits that his technical presentation, even with the
historical path laid bare, will be unconvincing (i.e. "quite
controversial"). If the theory and math were there, it would be
convincing - or at least worth investigating by *someone* other than him.

Most of you probably will not have read that paper, or would have
pooh-poohed it out of hand because you don't like the 901 speaker.


True, to many, from what I've heard and read. If the result of the
research is a product that sounds marginal at best, either the premise,
the engineering, the design, and or the construction - or all as
contributors - make studying the approach rather pointless. At least to me.

You remind me of an old friend who had a pair of Bose 501's. To him,
they were the height of fidelity. To me, the worst sounding speaker I
ever heard (that wasn't broken). There is no theory, no explanation, no
"image" that would change the fact that to me those 501's were
abominations, and to him Nirvana.

snip
"There must be other parameters important to hearing that had not yet been
considered in speaker design."


Perhaps he was recalling Hamlet?

In a word, most of the experts that you outline as having put me in my place
have not gone beyond 1965, and are still fooling around with crossovers and
spikes and stiffness of enclosures and driver materials and anything and
everything that has nothing to do with audibility, and not even considering
the most audible aspect of speaker design, which is radiation pattern.

THAT is why my exhortation to someone to please explain to me why this
Wilson team of experts didn't even mention the first two of The Big Three,
which are the most audible aspects of speakers and rooms.


Perhaps if you read anything about the Wilson design process you'd have
a better understanding. They do care about radiation patterns, and
design to help eliminate the comb filtering artifacts you find so
euphonic. But it's pretty silly to cite a marketing video for a 3rd
generation speaker as a comprehensive guide to their engineering philosophy.


When I saw the video and heard him say he memorizes the sound, I
thought to myself "SHEESH you should know better."


Actually, I think that is exactly what he does. He designs to reproduce
what he remembers (faulty though it be) of live performances. Not a way
for absolute accuracy to be sure, but a good way of achieving a speaker
that is voiced the way he personally thinks sounds "best" or as
producing the most "live" sound. If you have similar tastes, it'll work
for you as well.

I did lke the
notion of using the various rooms, and I assume at some point they do
some kind of anechoic testing. I do not think their speakers are
monstrosities, the ones I've heard sound good, but massively
overpriced.


What isn't massively overpriced in "high end audio"? I wouldn't say
that Wilson is breaking new trail in that respect; but the pack running
in front of them is pretty thin. I'd be hard pressed to justify paying
retail for their products.

snip

It's not enough to state that someone got it all wrong; you should tell why
you think that.


To quote; "go back through the What We Can Hear and Mind Stretchers
threads." I think you'll find a wealth of reason why folks would think
that.

snip
This is a whole new way of looking at the problem and I can't seem to shock
anyone into considering it, for reasons they can't explain, just as you
can't.


You bemoan the fact that no one can understand you, or they refuse to
listen, yet when reasons are given to you, or direct questions posed to
you, you simply ignore them. Saying "for reasons they can't explain" is
a false statement. To make it true, you have to modify it as "for
reasons they can't explain to my satisfaction and/or understanding".
They are not congruent statements. The latter is clearly a fools errand.

All most of them say is that I am not an expert, or I am all wrong,
or what are my CV, or am I an EE. STOP THAT.


Perhaps you've not noticed, but these repeated "STOP" and "STOP THAT"
tantrums isn't getting it done.

If you can't articulate your
objections to IMT, then get off the pot.


You're now a Moderator, eh? Agree with me or go home?

snip
I apologize for hijacking your thread. Can't help myself, after seeing that
ridiculous video of the Wilson stuff, which annoyed me to the extent you see
before you. Watts and Puppies and Sophias and WAMMs with all of the drivers
on the front of the box - dear God please make it stop.


They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people
spend big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs)
because they believe they sound great. Your self described "best
designed speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history.
Speakers are not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the
recordings they play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a
major role. At some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker
design choice - and the numbers don't lie when preference is the sole
criterion.

Go ahead - call this the "McDonalds argument" - you know where that will
lead.


This is well put. Gary is a nice guy, but he has a "bee in his bonnet" over
this pet notion of his and he won't let it go. I wrote a similar tome in
response to the quoted post, above, but The Moderators wouldn't let me post
it (I e-mailed it to Gary anyway 8^). Gary doesn't seem to get that most of
the more knowledgeable amongst us simply don't agree with his basic premiss
or the (largely anecdotal) "evidence " he uses to support it. Most people
would be content with the responses he has received, but not Gary. He keeps
beating a dead horse over this, and he doesn't seem to understand that it's a
pointless, nay, an empty, procedure. How many times has said that he is
through "hijacking threads" in order to repeat his theory, only to do it
again and again?

And you are right again when you say that he has been told time and time
again, in thread after thread WHY people disagree with him. But he ignores
those reasons and falls back on "not being understood" or being ignored
because of a lack of credentials. Well, he is understood. I understand
perfectly what his assertion is as I suspect you and and a number of others
do as well, but the fact remains that I do not agree with his assertion. I
don't agree with it because my experience tells me that it is wrong. I
dismiss his paper not because he lacks credentials, but because his data is
unscientific and not rigorously researched.

As a group, we are all audio enthusiasts here. So, it can be said that we are
Gary Eickmeier's peers. So in a way, we have "peer reviewed" his paper and
found it wanting. Now, under the strict precepts of the scientific method, it
is up to Gary to withdraw the paper, go back to his research, fix those
things to which his peers object, and resubmit his "findings" in a modified
paper! 8^) Isn't that the usual procedure? Is incessant whining over a peer
review rejection part of the scientific method? I don't think so...
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default From some very unique minds

"KH" wrote in message
...


They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people spend
big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs) because
they believe they sound great. Your self described "best designed
speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history. Speakers are
not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the recordings they
play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a major role. At
some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker design choice - and
the numbers don't lie when preference is the sole criterion.


OK, I'll play your game.

I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo of the Wilson WAMM during a break
from an audio show in L.A. It was at a high end dealer, I forget which now.
A bus took us from the show to the crime scene. The proprietor found it
necessary to completely blacken the room so we couldn't see the speakers
while they were playing. I hate that, because I enjoy being able to "see"
the localization of the instruments within my listening room in recordings
that feature such precise imaging. It would annoy me just as much at a live
concert. When I could see the speakers, they were like some horror story of
a caricature of all that I have found wrong with current audio practice in
speaker design. Not only were all of the drivers on one side - the front,
natch - but they had tilted the top couple of boxes down toward our hapless
ears so that we would get the full benefit of the direct sound from this
creation.

Well, give them a chance. But afterward Gordon and I were agreed that there
was "something" wrong with these speakers. The dealer, of course, thought
they were the end of the trail. I knew exactly what was wrong, which was
that they were way too hot on the direct field, which is nothing like live
sound.

Operating on the wrong - or no - stereo theory. They can't help it, just as
you can't, because you don't know any better. Some of the attendees may have
actually liked the sound because it was similar to what they were used to at
home, only had more of it, and they would think that that is what hi fi
should sound like. I did not, because I have had much better sound at home
for a long time now.

This dissonance between what "hi fi" should sound like and what live music
really does sound like causes a lot of confusion in the industry. For
example, some will like WAMMs and some will gravitate toward the Maggies and
Martin Logans and MBL omnis, which have entirely different radiation
patterns and philosophies for stereo effects - they cannot all be right, but
all have their adherents. I come along and claim that there IS a correct, or
more correct, way of thinking about the problem and designing toward it, but
the above disconnect among people of different experience bases makes them
tell me to go away, we have our preferences and we like it that way.

But that leaves us once again without a stereo theory of what the hell it is
we are doing with recording and reproduction. I laid out in my paper what I
see as the major theories, or ideas. There is the Bell Labs curtain of
sound, the Blumlein intensity stereo at the head of the listener, perhaps of
late the Wave Field Synthesis. There is Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, and
binaural on headphones or speakers.

As a designer, I find all this fascinating as hell. All of these are
attempts at the realistic reproduction of auditory perspective - realism. We
want the music to sound real, like it is right there in front of us just
like live. All of them have their problems in achieving this. My angle of
attack is to first separate the major categories of theories into the
head-related vs. the field type, then go after the field type as being the
more realistic, if not the most accurate.

The overlying concept is that there are basically two ways we can reproduce
a sensory experience: We can try to reproduce the sensory input or we can
reproduce the object itself and let our natural senses experience that. We
all know that the binaural is the first one, attempting to reproduce the ear
input signals that you would have heard at the same position in space as the
dummy head. William Snow in the fifties defined "stereophonic" as the
field-type system, so that is the word that I use for it, no matter how many
speakers we are talking about. It is a field-type system, and he made the
same broad separation between systems that I have used.

Long story short - I know you are getting impatient again - we need to
figure out the correct approach to speaker design for a field-type system.
Speaker design means radiation pattern, room positioning, and room
acoustics - the major audible factors. I believe I am not wrong or crazy in
that statement, because another writer, Siegfried Linkwitz, has asked the
question of the AES, what are the correct ones for reproduction of a
realistic Auditory Scene. Nobody in audio history has ever answered, or even
addressed, that question.

I have an answer, but if you say there is no answer, just preference, then
that leaves you without an answer and we continue on the path of the blind
leading the blind. Cut and try. Fool around. Memorize the last concert you
were at and design a crossover that sounds like it. Burp all of the sound at
your face and "get rid of" reflections in the room in the name of accuracy.
And the beat goes on.

A live orchestra makes certain sound patterns in a room. Your speakers make
certain sound patterns in your room. How can we make the second sound the
most like the first? Stereo theory.

The ball is in your court. If I am all washed up with the idea of comparing
their image models and all aspects of that, then you need to tell me the
correct paradigm or that there is none and we should just continue flailing
about if preference is the sole criterion.

Let me be absolutely clear on that. If you say that preference is the only
criterion, then you have left the discussion because there is no more point
in talking about a correct stereo theory if you don't think there is one.
But if you are saying that I am WRONG about my theory, then you can't get
off the hook by just saying it is all preference. If it is all preference,
then I cannot be wrong, because I have a preference too. But if I am WRONG
then you should correct me on what the right stereo theory is, or should be,
and why.

Gary Eickmeier





  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default From some very unique minds

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo

....
But afterward Gordon and I were agreed ...

....
I had a relatively famous British writer and acoustician, Peter Mapp,
over for a listen ...

....
I studied Industrial Design in college ...

....
a letter to Bose and a call from him and subsequent visit to the
factory to talk with his chief engineer

....
Dr. Bose once told me ...

....
Dr. Mark Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students

....

And my grandfather kissed Jane Withers: so what?

What are you expecting people to do with the above? It's pure hearsay,
and until these people step forward and corroborate your story, there's
no way for us to tell whether it's true or you just made it up.

But if I am WRONG then you should correct me ...


Wrong: the burden of proof is entirely on you, and you have failed
to meet that burden. You provide anecdote, you provide hearsay,
you make wild declarations, you make the claim that your theory is
correct and as proof you present your theory, you declare everyone
else is wrong because, well, they are, you advance silly argument
that sonotube must be perfect because some manufacturer used it,
and on and on and on.

Snore...

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default From some very unique minds

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:52:27 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"KH" wrote in message
...


They sound very good, why stop? The reality is, a great many people spend
big bucks on Wilsons (and a myriad other direct radiation designs) because
they believe they sound great. Your self described "best designed
speaker" on the other hand, is a footnote in audio history. Speakers are
not cables - they, and they rooms they're in, and the recordings they
play - are inherently inaccurate, and preference plays a major role. At
some point, the numbers stack up against your speaker design choice - and
the numbers don't lie when preference is the sole criterion.


OK, I'll play your game.

I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo of the Wilson WAMM during a break
from an audio show in L.A. It was at a high end dealer, I forget which now.
A bus took us from the show to the crime scene. The proprietor found it
necessary to completely blacken the room so we couldn't see the speakers
while they were playing. I hate that, because I enjoy being able to "see"
the localization of the instruments within my listening room in recordings
that feature such precise imaging. It would annoy me just as much at a live
concert. When I could see the speakers, they were like some horror story of
a caricature of all that I have found wrong with current audio practice in
speaker design. Not only were all of the drivers on one side - the front,
natch - but they had tilted the top couple of boxes down toward our hapless
ears so that we would get the full benefit of the direct sound from this
creation.

Well, give them a chance. But afterward Gordon and I were agreed that there
was "something" wrong with these speakers. The dealer, of course, thought
they were the end of the trail. I knew exactly what was wrong, which was
that they were way too hot on the direct field, which is nothing like live
sound.


OK Gary, but you are not playing "KH's Game". You are cherry-picking to
validate your point. the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it
wasn't very accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a full
symphony orchestra. It did not image well, that's a given. In fact, it wasn't
all that flat in frequency response either. I heard the WAMM in two different
settings: Once at the CES in Las Vegas, and the other times at the Apple
Macintosh R&D facility's foyer in Cupertino, CA. I had a buddy who worked
there and we'd often meet there in the evenings and listen to music on the
system. Believe me they sounded quite different in the Apple Foyer than they
did at the CES. They were much better in that larger space.

But that, and the WAMM speakers in general have NOTHING whatsoever to do with
the Watt/Puppies, the Sophias, the Alexandrias, the Sasha's or even the Maxx
3s. Which are MUCH better systems than the WAMM. Even Dave Wilson will
admit that the WAMMs were a pretty crude first attempt.

Operating on the wrong - or no - stereo theory. They can't help it, just as
you can't, because you don't know any better. Some of the attendees may have
actually liked the sound because it was similar to what they were used to at
home, only had more of it, and they would think that that is what hi fi
should sound like. I did not, because I have had much better sound at home
for a long time now.


Again, Using the WAMMs to make your case against Wilson speakers is like
Judging all Ferraris by a ride in a 4500 pound Ferrari 365GT-4 2+2 with an
automatic transmission! neither the car or the WAMM speakers are particularly
representative of the breed

This dissonance between what "hi fi" should sound like and what live music
really does sound like causes a lot of confusion in the industry. For
example, some will like WAMMs and some will gravitate toward the Maggies and
Martin Logans and MBL omnis, which have entirely different radiation
patterns and philosophies for stereo effects - they cannot all be right, but
all have their adherents. I come along and claim that there IS a correct, or
more correct, way of thinking about the problem and designing toward it, but
the above disconnect among people of different experience bases makes them
tell me to go away, we have our preferences and we like it that way.


Of course. Since there is no such thing as perfect reproduction, people tend
to focus on aspects of reproduction that are important to THEM. Like I've
said before, people who love the dynamic range and ultimate power of a full
symphony orchestra are going to LIKE the WAMM's presentation. Those who
appreciate pin-point imaging are probably not going to like them. Neither
will people who value flat frequency response. OTOH, those who like low
distortion will probably like Wilson WAMMs just fine, thank you. No speaker
can do everything well. It's just a physical impossibility. So we use
different speaker technologies to get certain things right, and choose our
speakers based upon our own preferences. If all speakers were perfect
reproducers, then we wouldn't have to pick and choose our poison. All
speakers would do everything right and would please everybody.

But that leaves us once again without a stereo theory of what the hell it is
we are doing with recording and reproduction. I laid out in my paper what I
see as the major theories, or ideas. There is the Bell Labs curtain of
sound, the Blumlein intensity stereo at the head of the listener, perhaps of
late the Wave Field Synthesis. There is Ambisonics, Ambiophonics, and
binaural on headphones or speakers.

As a designer, I find all this fascinating as hell. All of these are
attempts at the realistic reproduction of auditory perspective - realism. We
want the music to sound real, like it is right there in front of us just
like live. All of them have their problems in achieving this. My angle of
attack is to first separate the major categories of theories into the
head-related vs. the field type, then go after the field type as being the
more realistic, if not the most accurate.


Well some of us do, anyway. You'd be surprised how many "audio enthusiasts"
have never heard live music played in a real space and have no idea what
stereo really should sound like. They tend to just like big highs, lots of
bass and clean sound. Imaging doesn't matter.

The overlying concept is that there are basically two ways we can reproduce
a sensory experience: We can try to reproduce the sensory input or we can
reproduce the object itself and let our natural senses experience that. We
all know that the binaural is the first one, attempting to reproduce the ear
input signals that you would have heard at the same position in space as the
dummy head. William Snow in the fifties defined "stereophonic" as the
field-type system, so that is the word that I use for it, no matter how many
speakers we are talking about. It is a field-type system, and he made the
same broad separation between systems that I have used.

Long story short - I know you are getting impatient again - we need to
figure out the correct approach to speaker design for a field-type system.


As long as reproduction is imperfect, we just buy the speakers that tick all
of our personal boxes, and move on.


Speaker design means radiation pattern, room positioning, and room
acoustics - the major audible factors. I believe I am not wrong or crazy in
that statement, because another writer, Siegfried Linkwitz, has asked the
question of the AES, what are the correct ones for reproduction of a
realistic Auditory Scene. Nobody in audio history has ever answered, or even
addressed, that question.


Again room interactions are a tertiary effect. My amp has a DSP room
correction system built in. I have run the calibration and I use it in
playback (yes it makes the system sound somewhat better). When I switch
between the room EQ being in or out of my system, I can hear the difference,
yes, but it's not all that great of a difference and I could happily live
with it either way.

I have an answer, but if you say there is no answer, just preference, then
that leaves you without an answer and we continue on the path of the blind
leading the blind. Cut and try. Fool around. Memorize the last concert you
were at and design a crossover that sounds like it. Burp all of the sound at
your face and "get rid of" reflections in the room in the name of accuracy.
And the beat goes on.

A live orchestra makes certain sound patterns in a room. Your speakers make
certain sound patterns in your room. How can we make the second sound the
most like the first? Stereo theory.

The ball is in your court. If I am all washed up with the idea of comparing
their image models and all aspects of that, then you need to tell me the
correct paradigm or that there is none and we should just continue flailing
about if preference is the sole criterion.

Let me be absolutely clear on that. If you say that preference is the only
criterion, then you have left the discussion because there is no more point
in talking about a correct stereo theory if you don't think there is one.
But if you are saying that I am WRONG about my theory, then you can't get
off the hook by just saying it is all preference. If it is all preference,
then I cannot be wrong, because I have a preference too. But if I am WRONG
then you should correct me on what the right stereo theory is, or should be,
and why.


There is none because, once again, in the absence of a perfect speaker
system, people choose speakers according to those aspects of reproduced sound
that blows their particular skirts up. A perfect speaker SHOULD appeal to
everybody who is striving for the most realistic sound presentation. Those
who aren't chasing that "holy grail" will continue to prefer big, boomy bass
and bright tinkling highs. And there will still be speaker companies that
cater to those "tastes" in spite of the fact that there might be some
"perfect speakers" on the market at some point.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default From some very unique minds

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo

...
But afterward Gordon and I were agreed ...

...
I had a relatively famous British writer and acoustician, Peter Mapp,
over for a listen ...

...
I studied Industrial Design in college ...

...
a letter to Bose and a call from him and subsequent visit to the
factory to talk with his chief engineer

...
Dr. Bose once told me ...

...
Dr. Mark Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students

...

And my grandfather kissed Jane Withers: so what?


Really? And that didn't turn him off of women for life? I think it would me!
8^)


What are you expecting people to do with the above? It's pure hearsay,
and until these people step forward and corroborate your story, there's
no way for us to tell whether it's true or you just made it up.


It would be hard for Gordon to "step forward" as he's no longer with us. But
I can corroborate that he didn't think much of the Wilson WAMMs, and he was
one of my closest friends. But what others think isn't really too important
and name dropping doesn't cut much ice.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default From some very unique minds

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):


Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo


...

But afterward Gordon and I were agreed ...


...
I had a relatively famous British writer and acoustician, Peter Mapp,
over for a listen ...

...
I studied Industrial Design in college ...

...
a letter to Bose and a call from him and subsequent visit to the
factory to talk with his chief engineer

...
Dr. Bose once told me ...

...
Dr. Mark Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students

...

And my grandfather kissed Jane Withers: so what?


Really? And that didn't turn him off of women for life?


No, but he did subsequently die.

What are you expecting people to do with the above? It's pure hearsay,
and until these people step forward and corroborate your story, there's
no way for us to tell whether it's true or you just made it up.


It would be hard for Gordon to "step forward" as he's no longer with us.


Yup. I knew that, and did he leave behind any corroboration
of this encounter?

But I can corroborate that he didn't think much of the Wilson WAMMs,
and he was one of my closest friends.


Fine, so we have some indirect corroboration of his viewpoint
on the topic.

But that's not the entirety of his claim: he seems to want us to
give credence to his claim becuse of the nature of the claimed
encounter. Now, if in fact you read his claim carefully, it's
an interesting construct: He claims to have sat behind Gordon Holt,
which could mean that Gordon Holt, without turing around, could
have been utterly unaware of his presence. And, he later states
that he and Mr. Holt "were agreed."

So what?

This is like what my same grandfather used to tell the wholesalers
in New York when they'd ask him how was business, "Great, last month
alone, Marshall Fields and I did over $100,000,000!" The fact that he
and Mr. Holt "were agreed" lends no credence to his claim any more
than my grandfathers lumping his and Marshall Fields business in the
same answer (the only difference was my grandfather was joking,
though not all his audience saw the joke).

And let's go one step further in his claim, "The dealer, of course,
thought they were the end of the trail." Who gives a flying dingleberry
what a dealer thinks? Why is this considered relevant

name dropping doesn't cut much ice.


And this is precisely my point: all of these claims are hearsay,
and without the corroborative backup, they are no more valuable
to supporting data than pure fabrication.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default From some very unique minds

Audio Empire wrote:

the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it wasn't very
accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a
full symphony orchestra.


I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud. Reproducing the dynamic
range of a full symphony orchestra as heard from, say, Row J isn't
that hard. I'm not talking about reproducing the levels as heard by
some poor musician sat in front of the brass section, which is
something you really wouldn't want to do at home anyway.

From the reference I could find [1], Marsh (1975) reported 95 dB at

Chicago's Orchestra Hall, and maybe the peak factor is 5-10 dB, giving
100-105 dB peak. Olson (1967) reported peak SPLs of 100 dB. Granted,
this might be a bit of a challenge at 25Hz, but according to the
spectral plots in that paper there's little energy at such low
frequencies.

Andrew.


[1] From www.etymotic.com/publications/erl-0098-1999.pdf:

Marsh, R. C. (1975, August). Tweeters in the grass, alas. Chicago,
pp. 76-78.

Olson, H. F. (1967). Music, physics, and engineering. New York: Dover



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default From some very unique minds

On Jul 26, 11:48=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it wasn't very
accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a
full symphony orchestra.


I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. =A0A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud. =A0Reproducing the dynamic
range of a full symphony orchestra as heard from, say, Row J isn't
that hard. =A0I'm not talking about reproducing the levels as heard by
some poor musician sat in front of the brass section, which is
something you really wouldn't want to do at home anyway.

From the reference I could find [1], Marsh (1975) reported 95 dB at


Chicago's Orchestra Hall, and maybe the peak factor is 5-10 dB, giving
100-105 dB peak. =A0Olson (1967) reported peak SPLs of 100 dB. =A0Granted=

,
this might be a bit of a challenge at 25Hz, but according to the
spectral plots in that paper there's little energy at such low
frequencies.

Andrew.

[1] Fromwww.etymotic.com/publications/erl-0098-1999.pdf:

Marsh, R. C. (1975, August). Tweeters in the grass, alas. Chicago,
pp. 76-78.

Olson, H. F. (1967). Music, physics, and engineering. =A0New York: Dover


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music. But the *sense* of power you get from
a live orchestra is still something really hard to create with any
playback gear. Another note. You mentioned row J. Interestingly enough
in really good halls mid hall is just as loud as the front row. IME
the five rows are higly under rated when it comes to sound quality.
The issue isn't that the orchestra is too loud but that it is too
spread. For orchestral music I do like rows 7-12 best for that reason.
But for concertos I prefer rows 3-6 with the best view of the soloist.
I also prefer to sit as close as possible for solo and chamber works.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default From some very unique minds

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:04:33 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):


Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo

...

But afterward Gordon and I were agreed ...

...
I had a relatively famous British writer and acoustician, Peter Mapp,
over for a listen ...
...
I studied Industrial Design in college ...
...
a letter to Bose and a call from him and subsequent visit to the
factory to talk with his chief engineer
...
Dr. Bose once told me ...
...
Dr. Mark Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students
...

And my grandfather kissed Jane Withers: so what?


Really? And that didn't turn him off of women for life?


No, but he did subsequently die.

What are you expecting people to do with the above? It's pure hearsay,
and until these people step forward and corroborate your story, there's
no way for us to tell whether it's true or you just made it up.


It would be hard for Gordon to "step forward" as he's no longer with us.


Yup. I knew that, and did he leave behind any corroboration
of this encounter?

But I can corroborate that he didn't think much of the Wilson WAMMs,
and he was one of my closest friends.


Fine, so we have some indirect corroboration of his viewpoint
on the topic.

But that's not the entirety of his claim: he seems to want us to
give credence to his claim becuse of the nature of the claimed
encounter. Now, if in fact you read his claim carefully, it's
an interesting construct: He claims to have sat behind Gordon Holt,
which could mean that Gordon Holt, without turing around, could
have been utterly unaware of his presence. And, he later states
that he and Mr. Holt "were agreed."

So what?


Well, it doesn't really mean anything. Whether or not Gary and Gordon agreed
on something says really nothing about the speakers except maybe that they,
personally didn't like what they heard at that time. Now, I mentioned, in
another post, that I had heard the WAMMs at a CES, and I had also heard them
a number of times when Steve Jobs had them installed in the foyer of the
Macintosh development building at Apple in the mid 1980's. I had a buddy who
worked on the Mac early on, and we used meet over there and listen to music
in the evenings occasionally. The speakers sounded entirely different in
those two rooms. The CES hotel rooms are usually FAR from an ideal listening
environment for most speakers, but a system the size of the Wilson WAMMs is
especially disadvantaged in such a small room. They sounded much better in
the Apple foyer with its high ceilings and large volume. They still weren't
very flat in frequency response, and they still imaged rather vaguely, but
they would play with explosive dynamics and at normal listening levels seemed
to have very low distortion. I.E. they sounded BIG and that is rather a
revelation to those of us accustomed to a more scaled-down presentation of a
large orchestra. But, because of the faults I mentioned above, that novelty
soon wears off. I wouldn't want to live with a pair long-term. Luckily, (and
this was my point) the WAMMs had little in common with subsequent Wilson
designs, and are a poor choice with which to criticize Wilson or its
products.

This is like what my same grandfather used to tell the wholesalers
in New York when they'd ask him how was business, "Great, last month
alone, Marshall Fields and I did over $100,000,000!" The fact that he
and Mr. Holt "were agreed" lends no credence to his claim any more
than my grandfathers lumping his and Marshall Fields business in the
same answer (the only difference was my grandfather was joking,
though not all his audience saw the joke).

And let's go one step further in his claim, "The dealer, of course,
thought they were the end of the trail." Who gives a flying dingleberry
what a dealer thinks? Why is this considered relevant

name dropping doesn't cut much ice.


And this is precisely my point: all of these claims are hearsay,
and without the corroborative backup, they are no more valuable
to supporting data than pure fabrication.


OK, that might be YOU'RE point, Mr. Pierce, but it isn't mine. Mine is that
even with iron-clad provenance and sworn corroboration, anecdotal opinions
like this don't mean much. I have heard speakers at audio shows and CES shows
that I thought were terrible sounding, only to later buy a pair after hearing
them under better circumstances. There was a controversial line of ribbon
speakers that was a perfect example. I heard them at a Chicago Summer CES and
thought they were lousy. To me they had the boomiest, most overblown bass I'd
ever heard. A few months later a pair appeared on my doorstep for me to write
about. Once set-up in an environment with which I was intimately familiar, I
changed my mind about them. THEY weren't boomy, the hotel ROOM was boomy!
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio Empire Audio Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,193
Default From some very unique minds

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:24 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 26, 11:48=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it wasn't very
accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a
full symphony orchestra.


I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. =A0A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud. =A0Reproducing the dynamic
range of a full symphony orchestra as heard from, say, Row J isn't
that hard. =A0I'm not talking about reproducing the levels as heard by
some poor musician sat in front of the brass section, which is
something you really wouldn't want to do at home anyway.

From the reference I could find [1], Marsh (1975) reported 95 dB at


Chicago's Orchestra Hall, and maybe the peak factor is 5-10 dB, giving
100-105 dB peak. =A0Olson (1967) reported peak SPLs of 100 dB. =A0Granted=

,
this might be a bit of a challenge at 25Hz, but according to the
spectral plots in that paper there's little energy at such low
frequencies.

Andrew.

[1] Fromwww.etymotic.com/publications/erl-0098-1999.pdf:

Marsh, R. C. (1975, August). Tweeters in the grass, alas. Chicago,
pp. 76-78.

Olson, H. F. (1967). Music, physics, and engineering. =A0New York: Dover


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music. But the *sense* of power you get from
a live orchestra is still something really hard to create with any
playback gear. Another note. You mentioned row J. Interestingly enough
in really good halls mid hall is just as loud as the front row. IME
the five rows are higly under rated when it comes to sound quality.
The issue isn't that the orchestra is too loud but that it is too
spread. For orchestral music I do like rows 7-12 best for that reason.
But for concertos I prefer rows 3-6 with the best view of the soloist.
I also prefer to sit as close as possible for solo and chamber works.


Tou are correct. It is NOT the SPL, it's the amount of AIR that a symphony in
full song can move that affects the listener's whole body. Most speaker
systems just don't pressurize the room in a convincing manner. The WAMM gave
one the "feeling" that there was an orchestra playing in the room that you
were listening in. It might not have been a very good sounding room (due to
the speakers' shortcomings), but it felt more "live" than most listening
environments. That's what big speakers bring to the party. I know a very old
man (in his 80's) who has a pair of Altec-Lansing speakers in his living
room. Each speaker has FOUR 15-inch A-L woofers in it, crossed over to the
ubiquitous Altec "500 Hz" treble Horn. Below 500 Hz, the system is amazing.
I've never heard such bass! the way those 8 15" woofers pressurize the room,
one can almost see the walls bulging! Of course, any illusion of reality is
destroyed the instant the treble horns come into play. They've always sounded
lousy (to me. Somebody else might like them and that's fine. I'm not trying
to be the arbiter of anyone's taste, here).
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default From some very unique minds

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:11 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):


Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I sat right behind Gordon Holt at a demo

...

But afterward Gordon and I were agreed ...

...
I had a relatively famous British writer and acoustician, Peter Mapp,
over for a listen ...
...
I studied Industrial Design in college ...
...
a letter to Bose and a call from him and subsequent visit to the
factory to talk with his chief engineer
...
Dr. Bose once told me ...
...
Dr. Mark Davis, another of my heroes, was one of his students
...

And my grandfather kissed Jane Withers: so what?


Really? And that didn't turn him off of women for life?


No, but he did subsequently die.

What are you expecting people to do with the above? It's pure hearsay,
and until these people step forward and corroborate your story, there's
no way for us to tell whether it's true or you just made it up.


It would be hard for Gordon to "step forward" as he's no longer with us.


Yup. I knew that, and did he leave behind any corroboration
of this encounter?

But I can corroborate that he didn't think much of the Wilson WAMMs,
and he was one of my closest friends.


Fine, so we have some indirect corroboration of his viewpoint
on the topic.

But that's not the entirety of his claim: he seems to want us to
give credence to his claim becuse of the nature of the claimed
encounter. Now, if in fact you read his claim carefully, it's
an interesting construct: He claims to have sat behind Gordon Holt,
which could mean that Gordon Holt, without turing around, could
have been utterly unaware of his presence. And, he later states
that he and Mr. Holt "were agreed."

So what?

This is like what my same grandfather used to tell the wholesalers
in New York when they'd ask him how was business, "Great, last month
alone, Marshall Fields and I did over $100,000,000!" The fact that he
and Mr. Holt "were agreed" lends no credence to his claim any more
than my grandfathers lumping his and Marshall Fields business in the
same answer (the only difference was my grandfather was joking,
though not all his audience saw the joke).

And let's go one step further in his claim, "The dealer, of course,
thought they were the end of the trail." Who gives a flying dingleberry
what a dealer thinks? Why is this considered relevant

name dropping doesn't cut much ice.


And this is precisely my point: all of these claims are hearsay,
and without the corroborative backup, they are no more valuable
to supporting data than pure fabrication.


RAHE members, moderators, interested parties -

This is one of the silliest conversations I have yet encountered about my
Image Model Theory. Well, actually, it isn't even about that, because it
says nothing about it as usual.

I have had lunch with Mark Davis, Amar Bose, Jeffrey Borish, I consider
Floyd Toole a friend, as well as John Atkinson, Tom Nousaine, and Arny
Krueger. I am a member of the AES and the BAS. And so on.

But none of that has anything to do with IMT, nor have I said it did. Most
of those friends and acquaintances don't even agree with my theory, or won't
talk about it much, even though, for example, Borish has an image model
theory of his own!

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4447

I had a long conversation with Siegfried Linkwitz on the phone about The
Challenge, and we are basically in agreement on our observations about
speaker placement and room reflectivity. I hesitate to quote him because I
don't want to mis-speak, but he indicated that in one listening session he
had a salesman from a sound absorber company come in and place some of his
absorbers behind and beside his speakers to demonstrate how much they cold
help. With every step the Auditory Scene that he has been studying and
trying to explain collapsed more toward the speakers and lost depth and
spaciousness.

These sort of findings and especially my IMT are so surprising and contrary
to what most engineers believe that they are afraid to say it out loud or in
print for fear of the sort of criticism that is always leveled at me. All of
the parts of IMT are well-known and have long been studied and supported by
acousticians and designers throughout audio history, but have never been
synthesized into a stereo theory that puts it all together and states it
right out in the open, because it is so surprising.

Existing stereo theory seems to be that the entire burden of imaging is
carried by the direct sound from a pair or a line of speakers, that the
process is one of relaying the sound that the microphones "heard" straight
to your ears without interference from too many reflections from the room
nearby. They can't deny the need for some room reflections because they have
tried stereo in an anechoic chamber, but it goes not much farther than LEDE
or similar, still trying to keep the reflections away from the front of the
room.

The components of IMT are the well-known need for the lateral reflections
for spaciousness and good sound in general, image shift, and speaker
positioning and the audible effects related to their first reflections in
the surfaces near them. IMT states that if done properly these reflections
are the cause of the kind of imaging that audiophiles prize but don't know
what causes them - namely, depth, spaciousness, and the soundstage seeming
to "float" in a region outside of the speaker boxes themselves due to a
controlled image shift toward the reflective surfaces. This becomes even
more important to understand when you are using omnis and dipoles, and of
course the Direct/Reflecting designs of Bose.

Going further into this, I saw that this principle is so important that it
calls for a whole new theory for stereo, one which sees the stereo image as
a model of the live sound rather than this erroneous paradigm of a "picture"
of another acoustic space being relayed to your ears by the speakers. It
calls for a whole new way of looking at the process, which in turn calls for
a new look at loudspeaker design for this modeling effect rather than the
previously thought paradigm of "accuracy" of the direct field.

Relating all this to you has been my passion and mission for over 30 years.
It is usually rejected because it calls for waves of change in understanding
of the difference between head-related and field-type systems, stereo as a
model of live sound rather than a portal or window, loudspeaker design for
radiation pattern, room acoustics and design, speaker positioning, and
surround sound to support the full reverberant field.

None of all that has anything to do with who I had lunch with, what anyone
in particular thinks about it, my CV, or the price of tea in China. It is
what it is, it is what I have described in my IDEAS contained in my papers
and writings, not my name dropping. If Mr. Pierce is unable to address those
IDEAS themselves, then I would ask him to state what his design parameters
for speakers are, how he thinks stereo "really" works, come up with
something factual that refutes my statements about acoustics, speaker
positioning, image clustering, the need for lateral reflections, anything
that we can sink our teeth into besides all the personal attacks. You are
not impressed by my list of friends, I am not impressed by your CV. I would
be impressed by your IDEAS on the subject if you have any.

Gary Eickmeier



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default From some very unique minds

Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:24 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 26, 11:48=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it wasn't very
accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a
full symphony orchestra.

I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud.
...


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music. But the *sense* of power you get
from a live orchestra is still something really hard to create with
any playback gear.
...


Tou are correct. It is NOT the SPL, it's the amount of AIR that a
symphony in full song can move that affects the listener's whole
body. Most speaker systems just don't pressurize the room in a
convincing manner.


The amount of air movement is the SPL. Really big speakers get you
low frequency extension, but the amount of energy produced by an
orchestra at low frequencies isn't that great. It might simply be
that people notice the low bass that many "hi-fi" speakers barely
reproduce at all.

Andrew.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default From some very unique minds

On Jul 27, 7:07=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:24 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):


On Jul 26, 11:48=3DA0am, Andrew Haley =

d
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
the WAMM was Wilson's first speaker system, and no, it wasn't very
accurate. What it was, was one of the first (if not THE first)
speakers to be able to reproduce the power and dynamic range of a
full symphony orchestra.


I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud.
...


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music. But the *sense* of power you get
from a live orchestra is still something really hard to create with
any playback gear.
...


Tou are correct. It is NOT the SPL, it's the amount of AIR that a
symphony in full song can move that affects the listener's whole
body. Most speaker systems just don't pressurize the room in a
convincing manner.


The amount of air movement is the SPL. =A0Really big speakers get you
low frequency extension, but the amount of energy produced by an
orchestra at low frequencies isn't that great. =A0It might simply be
that people notice the low bass that many "hi-fi" speakers barely
reproduce at all.

Andrew.


They really are not the same thing. The amount of air movement would
be the acoustic energy in total. The SPLs would be the amplitude of
the air movement at any given position. A classic illustration of this
difference would be headphones. You can get really high SPLs without a
great quantity air movement. You can get really loud and deep bass
from headphones but you wont feel it in your chest.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Dick Pierce[_2_] Dick Pierce[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default From some very unique minds

Multiple people intoned:
I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud.
...


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music.

Tou are correct. It is NOT the SPL, it's the amount of AIR that a
symphony in full song can move


The amount of air movement is the SPL.


They really are not the same thing. The amount of air movement would
be the acoustic energy in total. The SPLs would be the amplitude of
the air movement at any given position.


Well, in fact, you're all kinda wrong. It's a quantity
"volume velocity" that determines SPL. To illustrate this
in the speaker sense, at low frequencies, the velocity
is low, so the driver's displacement (the product of excursion
and emissive area of the cone) has to be high to achieve the
same SPL as at a very high frequency, where the velocity is
high, thus the required displacement (again, excursion times
emizzive area) can be correspondingly low. This is why an
itsy-bitsy 1" tweeter can produce as much SPL at 10 kHz with
almost no perceptible motions as a 12" woofer can at 50 Hz
moving 1/2".

A classic illustration of this difference would be headphones.
You can get really high SPLs without a great quantity air
movement.


Actually AT THE EARDRUM, the amount of volume velocity for
a given sound pressure level has to be exactly the same,
whether it's coming from a headphone 1/2" away or a speaker
10' away.

You can get really loud and deep bass from headphones but
you wont feel it in your chest.


Well. it's not so much of a "classic illustration" as a
comparison of apples and oranges. Those headphones also
won't be moving the walls in your room, keeping the
significant other and the neighbors awake, and contributing,
in a very tiny way, to global warming either. So what?

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default From some very unique minds

On Jul 27, 11:13=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Multiple people intoned:

I've heard this before, and it always strikes me as odd. A full
symphony orchestra in a hall isn't very loud.
...


You make a very good point. It aint the SPLs that are difficult to
reproduce with orchestral music.


Tou are correct. It is NOT the SPL, it's the amount of AIR that a
symphony in full song can move


The amount of air movement is the SPL.


They really are not the same thing. The amount of air movement would
be the acoustic energy in total. The SPLs would be the amplitude of
the air movement at any given position.


Well, in fact, you're all kinda wrong. It's a quantity
"volume velocity" that determines SPL. To illustrate this
in the speaker sense, at low frequencies, the velocity
is low, so the driver's displacement (the product of excursion
and emissive area of the cone) has to be high to achieve the
same SPL as at a very high frequency, where the velocity is
high, thus the required displacement (again, excursion times
emizzive area) can be correspondingly low. This is why an
itsy-bitsy 1" tweeter can produce as much SPL at 10 kHz with
almost no perceptible motions as a 12" woofer can at 50 Hz
moving 1/2".


OK fair enough it is a function of amplitude and frequency.


A classic illustration of this difference would be headphones.


=A0 You can get really high SPLs without a great quantity air
=A0 movement.

Actually AT THE EARDRUM, the amount of volume velocity for
a given sound pressure level has to be exactly the same,
whether it's coming from a headphone 1/2" away or a speaker
10' away.


Yeah I know that. But I was responding to the assertion that the
amount of air movement is the SPL. This is ambiguous at best. In a
concert hall an orchestra does in fact move a lot of air but
headphones move just a little air. Yet they can easily produce the
same SPLs at the eardrum. So unless one actually specifies *at the
eardrum* then the assertion that the amount of air movement is the SPL
can be quite misleading.


You can get really loud and deep bass from headphones but


=A0 you wont feel it in your chest.

Well. it's not so much of a "classic illustration" as a
comparison of apples and oranges.



No it's not apples and oranges at all. this is about what it takes to
create the sense of acoustic power of an orchestra and whether or not
it is just a matter of SPLs. So the WAMMs will let you feel it in your
body but headphones won't. This will affect that illusion of the
energy of a live orchestra even if the SPLs are a dead match at the
ear drums.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
big sound and small minds [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 14 September 14th 06 01:48 PM
To the newsgroup junkies of RAO: free your addiction and your minds will follow. [email protected] Audio Opinions 1 May 17th 06 01:55 AM
unique CDR's David Johnson Pro Audio 5 October 15th 03 10:11 PM
The Pathetic State Of High End Audio In Some People's Minds Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 217 September 29th 03 01:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"