Lost in Beolab 5 Thread

[Gary Eickmeier]

I just noticed a remark by Scott in the Beolab 5 thread that is fairly
recent, March 20th, which I missed because I thought that one was dead. He
opines:

"Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing to do with the
>human hearing mechanism, in either the recording or the reproduction.

This is the base point at which you are totally, fundamentally wrong, and
until you get it into your head that the whole point of stereophony is
based upon the limitations of human hearing you will continue fumbling
around
in vast and total ignorance.
--scott


So if anyone is still interested....

There is stereophonic and there is binaural. Two completely different and
incompatible systems, based on different theories. Binaural is a
head-related system in which a dummy head is placed at the scene and records
the ear input signals that you will hear when you play them back into your
headphones, or sometimes loudspeaker binaural. This is the system that
depends on understanding the human hearing mechanism, in both recording and
playback.

Stereophonic, or just stereo, is a field-type system that is not head
related at all, but rather sound field related. It is recorded with a
variety of methods, from purist single point to multi-miked and everywhere
in between. The recording engineer need not be concerned with human hearing
mechaniams, number of ears on your head, pinnae, crosstalk, frequency
response, none of it. All that he is charged with doing is recording the
sound that exists at a place and time, or at several places and times, or
created from whole cloth in a synthesizer, or any number of techniques that
have nothing to do with any dummy head or individual witnessing any
particular concert that ever existed. The recording is created in the mixer
and the recorder by the producer, and its only destiination is its
recreation in another room. Or should I say creation?

It will not be played back on headphones nor does it have to incorporate
crosstalk cancellation or anything that has to do with human hearing. All
you need to do is make sound in a room. The audience will then hear it the
same way they did if they were at some concert event, with their natural
hearing mechanism.

Furthermore, everyone will hear the same event, no matter what their hearing
differences, just as we all hear the same event at a live concert. All we
are concerned with in the reproduction is making the same sound patterns
within our playback room as were made live, or as the producer wishes to be
made from his product. Speaker designers should be more concerned with
radiation patterns, frequency response, speaker positioning, and room
acoustics than with your hearing mechanism. What's more, there can be two,
three, four, five, seven, or any number of chanels needed or desired to make
those sound patterns mimic live sound even better. Very few of us have seven
ears, so it has nothing to do with our human hearing mechanism.

The sooner we all learn all that, the more progress can be made in the
science and the art of recording and reproducing sound fields in rooms.

--
Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> I just noticed a remark by Scott in the Beolab 5 thread that is fairly
> recent, March 20th, which I missed because I thought that one was dead. He
> opines:
>
> "Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing to do with the
> >human hearing mechanism, in either the recording or the reproduction.
>
> This is the base point at which you are totally, fundamentally wrong, and
> until you get it into your head that the whole point of stereophony is
> based upon the limitations of human hearing you will continue fumbling
> around
> in vast and total ignorance.
> --scott
>
>
> So if anyone is still interested....
>
> There is stereophonic and there is binaural. Two completely different and
> incompatible systems, based on different theories. Binaural is a
> head-related system in which a dummy head is placed at the scene and records
> the ear input signals that you will hear when you play them back into your
> headphones, or sometimes loudspeaker binaural. This is the system that
> depends on understanding the human hearing mechanism, in both recording and
> playback.
>
> Stereophonic, or just stereo, is a field-type system that is not head
> related at all, but rather sound field related.

There you go again, and I am sorry, but just try to hear any damn thing,
Gary, without having your head involved. I grant that in certain
circumstances you appear to be able to attempt to listen without having
your brain engaged, but still, you are carrying around a cranial cavity
filled with proccesing equipment. When you start trying to redefine that
which is well established to justify your own erroneous viewpoints you
are swimming in the shallow end of the pool, trying to explain high
diving. You would serve your own education more effectively by shutting
up and listening to what Scott attempted to tell you above.

People are still sufficiently interested to be up to date on established
science in these matters. Try catching up with them.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> I just noticed a remark by Scott in the Beolab 5 thread that is fairly
>> recent, March 20th, which I missed because I thought that one was dead.
>> He
>> opines:
>>
>> "Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>> >
>> >Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing to do with the
>> >human hearing mechanism, in either the recording or the reproduction.
>>
>> This is the base point at which you are totally, fundamentally wrong, and
>> until you get it into your head that the whole point of stereophony is
>> based upon the limitations of human hearing you will continue fumbling
>> around
>> in vast and total ignorance.
>> --scott
>>
>>
>> So if anyone is still interested....
>>
>> There is stereophonic and there is binaural. Two completely different and
>> incompatible systems, based on different theories. Binaural is a
>> head-related system in which a dummy head is placed at the scene and
>> records
>> the ear input signals that you will hear when you play them back into
>> your
>> headphones, or sometimes loudspeaker binaural. This is the system that
>> depends on understanding the human hearing mechanism, in both recording
>> and
>> playback.
>>
>> Stereophonic, or just stereo, is a field-type system that is not head
>> related at all, but rather sound field related.
>
> There you go again, and I am sorry, but just try to hear any damn thing,
> Gary, without having your head involved. I grant that in certain
> circumstances you appear to be able to attempt to listen without having
> your brain engaged, but still, you are carrying around a cranial cavity
> filled with proccesing equipment. When you start trying to redefine that
> which is well established to justify your own erroneous viewpoints you
> are swimming in the shallow end of the pool, trying to explain high
> diving. You would serve your own education more effectively by shutting
> up and listening to what Scott attempted to tell you above.
>
> People are still sufficiently interested to be up to date on established
> science in these matters. Try catching up with them.

OK, I'm willing to listen. Tell me how you incorporate the human hearing
mechanism in your work. Your post says nothing about where I am wrong. Do
you know about binaural and stereophonic? What is your version of the
difference?

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>OK, I'm willing to listen. Tell me how you incorporate the human hearing
>mechanism in your work. Your post says nothing about where I am wrong. Do
>you know about binaural and stereophonic? What is your version of the
>difference?

Nobody anywhere is disputing the difference between binaural recording and
stereophony. Why you keep harping on and on about that, I have no idea
because it's not relevant to anything that anybody is telling you.

What I keep pointing out, over and over again, is that stereophony is a
trick that relies entirely on the limitations of the human brain to detect
position.

When you play back a stereo recording properly there is a wide image that
extends beyond the speakers, there is a sense of depth, and sounds are
positioned accurately but not too precisely within the stereo field. This
is NOT because the stereo system is in some way accurately reproducing the
exact wavefront from the original hall. The stereo system cannot do that,
and nobody has ever claimed it could. You keep setting up strawmen and saying
"people believe this" when stating things that nobody ever believed.

The stereo system does not need to recreate the exact wavefront in 3-space,
it only needs to do so sufficiently well as to fool the brain into thinking
it is hearing such a reproduction, and in fact if you look carefully you will
find that it actually doesn't have to do a very accurate job at all in order
to fool the brain very effectively.

The whole point of stereophony is that it relies on the limitations of the
human hearing system, that is everything that it is about and until you
begin to understand this, you won't figure the process out.

On top of that, I suspect that you haven't actually heard any accurate-sounding
stereo reproduction. This is a problem, but I don't know what to suggest
other than for you to take it for granted that such a thing is possible.

If you are going to start with the premise that such a thing is impossible,
and you are going to discourse based on that premise to a group of people
who routinely hear accurate stereophony every day, you cannot expect a good
reception.
--scott
>
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >OK, I'm willing to listen. Tell me how you incorporate the human hearing
> >mechanism in your work. Your post says nothing about where I am wrong. Do
> >you know about binaural and stereophonic? What is your version of the
> >difference?
>
> Nobody anywhere is disputing the difference between binaural recording and
> stereophony. Why you keep harping on and on about that, I have no idea
> because it's not relevant to anything that anybody is telling you.
>
> What I keep pointing out, over and over again, is that stereophony is a
> trick that relies entirely on the limitations of the human brain to detect
> position.
>
> When you play back a stereo recording properly there is a wide image that
> extends beyond the speakers, there is a sense of depth, and sounds are
> positioned accurately but not too precisely within the stereo field. This
> is NOT because the stereo system is in some way accurately reproducing the
> exact wavefront from the original hall. The stereo system cannot do that,
> and nobody has ever claimed it could. You keep setting up strawmen and
> saying "people believe this" when stating things that nobody ever
> believed.
>
> The stereo system does not need to recreate the exact wavefront in
> 3-space, it only needs to do so sufficiently well as to fool the brain
> into thinking it is hearing such a reproduction, and in fact if you look
> carefully you will find that it actually doesn't have to do a very
> accurate job at all in order to fool the brain very effectively.
>
> The whole point of stereophony is that it relies on the limitations of the
> human hearing system, that is everything that it is about and until you
> begin to understand this, you won't figure the process out.
>
> On top of that, I suspect that you haven't actually heard any
> accurate-sounding stereo reproduction. This is a problem, but I don't
> know what to suggest other than for you to take it for granted that such a
> thing is possible.
>
> If you are going to start with the premise that such a thing is
> impossible, and you are going to discourse based on that premise to a
> group of people who routinely hear accurate stereophony every day, you
> cannot expect a good reception.
> --scott

As always, Scott, thank you.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>OK, I'm willing to listen. Tell me how you incorporate the human hearing
>>mechanism in your work. Your post says nothing about where I am wrong. Do
>>you know about binaural and stereophonic? What is your version of the
>>difference?
>
> Nobody anywhere is disputing the difference between binaural recording and
> stereophony. Why you keep harping on and on about that, I have no idea
> because it's not relevant to anything that anybody is telling you.
>
> What I keep pointing out, over and over again, is that stereophony is a
> trick that relies entirely on the limitations of the human brain to detect
> position.
>
> When you play back a stereo recording properly there is a wide image that
> extends beyond the speakers, there is a sense of depth, and sounds are
> positioned accurately but not too precisely within the stereo field. This
> is NOT because the stereo system is in some way accurately reproducing the
> exact wavefront from the original hall. The stereo system cannot do that,
> and nobody has ever claimed it could. You keep setting up strawmen and
> saying
> "people believe this" when stating things that nobody ever believed.
>
> The stereo system does not need to recreate the exact wavefront in
> 3-space,
> it only needs to do so sufficiently well as to fool the brain into
> thinking
> it is hearing such a reproduction, and in fact if you look carefully you
> will
> find that it actually doesn't have to do a very accurate job at all in
> order
> to fool the brain very effectively.
>
> The whole point of stereophony is that it relies on the limitations of the
> human hearing system, that is everything that it is about and until you
> begin to understand this, you won't figure the process out.
>
> On top of that, I suspect that you haven't actually heard any
> accurate-sounding
> stereo reproduction. This is a problem, but I don't know what to suggest
> other than for you to take it for granted that such a thing is possible.
>
> If you are going to start with the premise that such a thing is
> impossible,
> and you are going to discourse based on that premise to a group of people
> who routinely hear accurate stereophony every day, you cannot expect a
> good
> reception.

Scott & all,

You are mis-characterizing everything I am saying. My post here was a simple
explanation of the difference between stereo and binaural, something that we
should all know well. It was in response to your fairly insulting comment
from the Beolab thread. All that I am pointing out is that a binaural system
uses a dummy head that is similar to the human hearing mechanism to record
ear signals that are meant to be played back as signals for the listener's
two ears input directly by means of headphones or some sort of crosstalk
cancelling circuit on loudspeakers so that those two signals would isolate
to the two ears and you might perceive the same perspective that the dummy
head heard at the performance. This is fundamentally different from the
stereo system, which is not recorded with a dummy head and does not have to
be isolated at the listener's ears and is not required to be limited to two
channels, microphones, or tracks.

The description as a field type system illustrates this difference and was
used by William Snow and Harry Olson of the Bell Labs long ago (the 50s).
The implications of this difference carry over to loudspeaker design and
room acoustics and the whole theory of loudspeaker reproduction. I am
working on some speakers that make use of these differences, but all you
need to understand is that there is a basic difference in recording and
reproduction techniques between the two, which is why I made the statement
that the stereophonic system is not a head-related one like binaural. You do
not make any use of, or reference to, the human hearing mechanism when
placing your microphones and mixing your recordings. Your reference is sound
in rooms, not interaural crosstalk, pinnae differences, ear canals, ear
spacing or the number of ears on your head.

I don't recall philosophizing about exact wavefront reconstruction, being
there, acoustic perfection, or any of what you think I said. What I am
saying will wait for another day, but it is basically similar to what Dave
Moulton was saying about the Beolab 5 design, with slightly different
explanation of the principles involved. There have been a few other
multi-directional speakers created over the years as well, for similar
reasons, without a comprehensive theoretical basis laid out in so many
words.

Pointing out so to illustrate that I might not be the crazy that you think I
am. Not trying to stir it all up again, just respond to a badly mistaken
remark from you.

Gary Eickmeier

[PStamler]

Gary, what I can puzzle out from what you're saying is that you're asserting that there is a major difference between binaural and stereophonic reproduction; that the latter depends on reconstructing the wavefront of the original sound in the recording venue, and that, in the latter, psychoacoustic effects are not involved.

This topic was covered quite thoroughly in U. S. Patent #2,019,615 (applied for Nov. 1933, granted Nov. 1935) and #2,019,616 (applied for Feb. 1934, granted Nov. 1935) by Joseph Maxfield of the Bell System (who was the co-developer of the electrical disc recording system used by most American labels). The first patent describes a stereophonic transmission system, the second applies the same approach to recording. Both also discuss binaural transmission/recording.

To my knowledge, these patents marked the first attempts to use the system of three spaced omnidirectional microphones which became the norm for American recordings after its successful use in the Mercury Living Presence and RCA Victor Living Stereo recordings of the 1950s. You might want to read those patents thoroughly before proceeding further with your argument -- they can be downloaded from freepatentsonline.com. Joseph Maxfield knew his stuff.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

PStamler wrote:
> Gary, what I can puzzle out from what you're saying is that you're
> asserting that there is a major difference between binaural and
> stereophonic reproduction; that the latter depends on reconstructing
> the wavefront of the original sound in the recording venue, and that,
> in the latter, psychoacoustic effects are not involved.
>
> This topic was covered quite thoroughly in U. S. Patent #2,019,615
> (applied for Nov. 1933, granted Nov. 1935) and #2,019,616 (applied
> for Feb. 1934, granted Nov. 1935) by Joseph Maxfield of the Bell
> System (who was the co-developer of the electrical disc recording
> system used by most American labels). The first patent describes a
> stereophonic transmission system, the second applies the same
> approach to recording. Both also discuss binaural
> transmission/recording.
>
> To my knowledge, these patents marked the first attempts to use the
> system of three spaced omnidirectional microphones which became the
> norm for American recordings after its successful use in the Mercury
> Living Presence and RCA Victor Living Stereo recordings of the 1950s.
> You might want to read those patents thoroughly before proceeding
> further with your argument -- they can be downloaded from
> freepatentsonline.com. Joseph Maxfield knew his stuff.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

No Paul. If you think I haven't read all of that stuff in the 30 or so years
I have been studying acoustics and psychoacoustics and listening to
everything I could get my ears on, then I would indeed be the silly ass
Scott thinks I am. I covered all of that in my paper presented in 1989 at
the AES.

Download the Blumlein patent from the internet? Good lord do you all not
have a copy of the Anthology of Stereophonic Techniques from the AES? My
favorite article is the one by Snow called Basic Principles of Stereophonic
Sound. In it he defines all of the systems and explains the widespread
confusion between binaural and stereophonic. I tried to emphasize the
differences between the two in my paper, and for a very good reason - most
speaker designers and audiophiles seem to be thinking that the function of a
loudspeaker is to simply pass on a signal contained in the recording
straight to your ears, and any interference from the room they are in is a
nuisance variable to be eliminated with Sonex and similar. This is the
"accuracy" crowd, and the search for more realistic reproduction has been
thought of as a search for greater and greater accuracy.

I could pretty much guarantee that this is Scott's thnking right now, and
the idea of a field-type system has never occurred to him. What I am trying
to tell the world is that if you can think of the implications of what
thinking of the reproduction as sound fields in rooms means, then it changes
most everything.

The "thing" that we are trying to reproduce is an acoustical event, a huge,
powerful, sprawling sound field comprised of a small amount of direct, a
very important early reflected field, and a full reverberant field around
us. The acoustical "shape" of these fields can be most visually represented
by an image model drawing, which is just a way of presenting the patterns of
direct and reflected sound as acoustical images on the other side of the
front and side walls. THAT is what the "thing" is that we are trying to
reproduce.

Now...

The binaural confusion is that the job of the speakers is to send this
recorded "signal" directly to the ears, just like binaural does. Then, the
confusion goes, your ears will be fooled into hearing "what the microphones
heard."

My statement is that once you uncouple your ears from the two channels
feeding them directly - think of this as taking the headphones off - and
your ears are free to hear all of the spatial qualities of your speakers and
room - then the sound field in your room takes on the spatial qualities of
those speakers and that room. If nothing is done about it, then you will get
a very different presentation from what happened live, you will hear sound
as coming from the speakers rather than occuring in the room, and the
suspension of disbelief will fail.

Scott's solution would be to eliminate the room around the speakers as much
as possible. Cast all of the sound directly toward your head, so that you
might perceive the sound field of the original "at the listener's head"
(reproduction on a microscopic scale by means of intensity a la Blumlein).

My solution is the realization that if this is a field-type system, then
converting the entire recorded signal to a direct field from two boxes is
the entirely wrong direction. What we should be doing is reproducing the
entire sound field of direct, early reflected, and reverberant sound as a
set of fields within our room, in which case the function of the loudspeaker
becomes not a direct radiator but an image model projector. That is image
model theory, and that is what I am building with the help of an engineer in
Indiana. A "macroscopic" field in your room rather than a microscopic field
at your head.

Part of the total theory is the realization of the difference between small
room and large room acoustics, in which we must face the fact that a larger
room sounds more realistic because the size of the model is more like the
real thing. You want it larger than your sitting room but not so large that
it starts to generate its own acoustic signature. My room is 21 x 31 feet
and is well enough damped that there is no slap echo but there is good
communication in the room. The front and side walls, however, are specularly
reflective to encourage the first reflections of the model and to give them
the same frequncy response as the direct sound. They occur within the fusion
time and are not echoes and do not address the temporal, just the spatial,
which is also a very hard concept for first timers to understand. The
temporal is contained in the recording, including the reverberation time of
the hall.

The final result is a huge, powerful, realistic acoustic event in which the
sounds that the recording engineer intends are heard as a huge model of the
live sound from wall to wall in front of you and all around you by means of
surround speakers to mimic the full reverberant field. This is not an exact
wavefront reconstruction. It is not possible to make a smaller room sound
exactly like the larger recorded room. However, the sound fields that have
been reconstructed within your room are real and not a binaural effect
except for the very fortunate aspect of the psychoacoustics of using two or
more coherent sources called summing localization, in which we can perceive
auditory events anywhere along a line between the speakers, or in my case
between the speakers and the front and side walls of the room in 3
dimensional space.

Scott is trying to tell me that I have just not heard a really good direct
firing LEDE system and that it really does work like a binaural effect and I
just don't get how stereophony works on the ears to fool you from a limited
number of channels. What I and Moulton and all of those who are making multi
directional speakers such as Ohm, Quad, Magneplanar, MBL, B&O, Shahinian,
Snell, and yes, Infinity with the open midranges and 12 tweeters on the back
of the IRS are trying to say is that the spatial characteristic contained in
the recording can be best brought out by means of certain patterns of direct
and reflected sound in your actual acoustic space. It is three dimensional
because the speakers are pulled out from the walls in 3-dimensional space in
front of the wider and deeper surfaces around them. If done right you can
walk around them and perceive different perspectives on the instruments.

When done right this effect is impressive and extremely realistic, but there
are more ways of screwing it up than getting it right, which is why we need
more than just those listed above to study it. But the first step is to
learn the difference between binaural systems and field-type systems.

Gary Eickmeier

[PStamler]

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:00:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>But the first step is to
> learn the difference between binaural systems and field-type systems.

Gary, do you think Scott Dorsey doesn't know the difference? Believe me, he does -- he's been doing audio and recording for a long time, and well.

And, Gary, do you believe that only you understand how this stuff works (along with Snow)?

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

PStamler wrote:
> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:00:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> But the first step is to
>> learn the difference between binaural systems and field-type systems.
>
> Gary, do you think Scott Dorsey doesn't know the difference? Believe
> me, he does -- he's been doing audio and recording for a long time,
> and well.
>
> And, Gary, do you believe that only you understand how this stuff
> works (along with Snow)?

Did I not describe the differences in our thinking clearly enough? Scott, is
your ideal monitoring room more like LEDE or sound field reconstruction?

In any case, I have tried to communicate where I am coming from and correct
some of the impressions that you had of what I am saying. If my description
of the various ways of thnking about, or doing stereo, if wrong, then jump
on in there and correct me. Stick to the subject and keep personalities out
of it. I come in peace. Let us communicate.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Yes.
Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> PStamler wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:00:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> But the first step is to
> >> learn the difference between binaural systems and field-type systems.
> >
> > Gary, do you think Scott Dorsey doesn't know the difference? Believe
> > me, he does -- he's been doing audio and recording for a long time,
> > and well.
> >
> > And, Gary, do you believe that only you understand how this stuff
> > works (along with Snow)?
>
> Did I not describe the differences in our thinking clearly enough? Scott, is
> your ideal monitoring room more like LEDE or sound field reconstruction?
>
> In any case, I have tried to communicate where I am coming from and correct
> some of the impressions that you had of what I am saying. If my description
> of the various ways of thnking about, or doing stereo, if wrong, then jump
> on in there and correct me. Stick to the subject and keep personalities out
> of it. I come in peace. Let us communicate.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
>
> Yes.
> Gary

You come filled with preconceived notions and a lot of hot air. That's
about it. You are too full of yourself to pay attention, to learn. The
intensity of your affliction is impressive.

You also come here as a newbie to the forum, and one who has invested
little or no time learning about the people at whom you aim your
opinions. These are people of considerable depth of knowledge of audio
in many aspects, people who have been doing professional work for most
or all of their lives, people who have built rooms, set up many
functional monitoring systems, run mastering lathes, played concerts in
venues large and small, mixed live shows from solo folk artists to rock
acts playing to thousands and the span between, the lot of it.

Meanwhile, you fail to get decent amatuer recordings and come seeking
advice. You take that advice, and then turn around and imagine that the
people who helped you try to figure out where you ****ed up have little
real knowledge of auditory fundamentals.

You say **** like

>Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing to do with the
>human hearing mechanism, in either the recording or the reproduction.

and then when people with better understanding attempt to correct your
pathetic misconceptions you write paragraphs of nonsense in rebuttal.

This makes it difficult to wish to help you. I am impressed with the
patience of others here, even as they are familiar with my lack of same
in such situations.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

> Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing
> to do with the human hearing mechanism, in either the
> recording or the reproduction.

This statement is sort-of correct, in that conventional stereo recordings do
not make full and/or proper use of the human (directional) hearing mechanisms.

But binaural, Ambisonic, and WFS systems /do/ make correct use of these
mechanisms.

When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably and
demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're saying. Until
then...

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>speaker designers and audiophiles seem to be thinking that the function of a
>loudspeaker is to simply pass on a signal contained in the recording
>straight to your ears, and any interference from the room they are in is a
>nuisance variable to be eliminated with Sonex and similar. This is the
>"accuracy" crowd, and the search for more realistic reproduction has been
>thought of as a search for greater and greater accuracy.
>
>I could pretty much guarantee that this is Scott's thnking right now, and
>the idea of a field-type system has never occurred to him.

NO.
NO IT IS NOT.
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY M0UTH.

You are doing it again. You are once again setting up a useless straw man
and saying "Scott believes this" when in fact if you have made ANY attempt
to read ANYTHING I have said you will reaize that I do not believe this at all.

>The "thing" that we are trying to reproduce is an acoustical event, a huge,
>powerful, sprawling sound field comprised of a small amount of direct, a
>very important early reflected field, and a full reverberant field around
>us. The acoustical "shape" of these fields can be most visually represented
>by an image model drawing, which is just a way of presenting the patterns of
>direct and reflected sound as acoustical images on the other side of the
>front and side walls. THAT is what the "thing" is that we are trying to
>reproduce.

Yes, but you cannot reproduce that with merely two sources. It is impossible
to accurately reproduce the full soundfield in 3-space this way.

The thing is: we don't actually have to reproduce the full soundfield, because
we have a trick.

>Scott's solution would be to eliminate the room around the speakers as much
>as possible. Cast all of the sound directly toward your head, so that you
>might perceive the sound field of the original "at the listener's head"
>(reproduction on a microscopic scale by means of intensity a la Blumlein).

NO, THAT IS NOT MY SOLUTION. You have not listened to a single thing that
I have said and once again you are putting words into my mouth.

>Scott is trying to tell me that I have just not heard a really good direct
>firing LEDE system and that it really does work like a binaural effect and I
>just don't get how stereophony works on the ears to fool you from a limited
>number of channels.

I have NEVER said that it works anything LIKE a binaural effect. What is
with you that you keep saying this over and over again when it is clear
that nobody actually holds the belief that you are railing against?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>PStamler wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:00:19 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> But the first step is to
>>> learn the difference between binaural systems and field-type systems.
>>
>> Gary, do you think Scott Dorsey doesn't know the difference? Believe
>> me, he does -- he's been doing audio and recording for a long time,
>> and well.
>>
>> And, Gary, do you believe that only you understand how this stuff
>> works (along with Snow)?
>
>Did I not describe the differences in our thinking clearly enough? Scott, is
>your ideal monitoring room more like LEDE or sound field reconstruction?

Since I have only two channels, and I am monitoring signals that are intended
to be reproduced in an LEDE room, of COURSE the ideal monitoring room is more
like an LEDE room.

If were reproducing with 24 channels the way the Carouso folks are doing,
sound field reconstruction would be a reasonable goal.

But we are talking about stereophony here, not direct reconstruction of a
sound field.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing
>> to do with the human hearing mechanism, in either the
>> recording or the reproduction.
>
>This statement is sort-of correct, in that conventional stereo recordings do
>not make full and/or proper use of the human (directional) hearing mechanisms.
>
>But binaural, Ambisonic, and WFS systems /do/ make correct use of these
>mechanisms.

Let's say "complete" use rather than "correct" or "full."

Stereophonic systems cannot accurately reproduce all sources in three-space
in a sphere completely surrounding the listener, as would be necessary to
make a perfect reproduction of an environmental source.

But they can do well enough to get by, owing to deficiencies in the human
hearing system. This is the trick that makes stereophony work.

>When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably and
>demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're saying. Until
>then...

Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your goal
is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space. The problem is that
it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared playback facility,
requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end really doesn't sound that
much better than a good 2-channel system owing to the aforementioned
deficiencies in the human organism.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>>I could pretty much guarantee that this is Scott's thnking right now, and
>>the idea of a field-type system has never occurred to him.

>NO.
>NO IT IS NOT.
>STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY M0UTH.

>You are doing it again. You are once again setting up a useless straw man
>and saying "Scott believes this" when in fact if you have made ANY attempt
>to read ANYTHING I have said you will reaize that I do not believe this at all.

This has been my problem with Gary. You state one thing -- sometimes repeatedly --
and he restates something else you did not say, such as insinuating that LEDE is the
same as DEDE, and that the unwashed vulgar masses in pro audio ONLY want DEDE
(utterly false), or completely tosses away the direct observations of many.

He seems like a bright fellow, well spoken and knowledgable within his universe, but
is unwilling, apparently, to entertain anything outside his experience.

"I am I, Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha, my destiny calls and I go...."

Many here no doubt know the rest of the song and the story. Seems applicable here.
If you don't know the story, look up "Tilting at Windmills" on wikipedia. The first
two paragraphs seem to sum up the experience here rather well. I'll quote them:

"Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary
enemies...
"The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are
incorrectly perceived, or courses of action are based on misinterpreted or
misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an
importune, unfounded, and vain effort against confabulated adversaries for a vain
goal..." - Chrisine Ammer, American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >speaker designers and audiophiles seem to be thinking that the function of a
> >loudspeaker is to simply pass on a signal contained in the recording
> >straight to your ears, and any interference from the room they are in is a
> >nuisance variable to be eliminated with Sonex and similar. This is the
> >"accuracy" crowd, and the search for more realistic reproduction has been
> >thought of as a search for greater and greater accuracy.
> >
> >I could pretty much guarantee that this is Scott's thnking right now, and
> >the idea of a field-type system has never occurred to him.
>
> NO.
> NO IT IS NOT.
> STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY M0UTH.
>
> You are doing it again. You are once again setting up a useless straw man
> and saying "Scott believes this" when in fact if you have made ANY attempt
> to read ANYTHING I have said you will reaize that I do not believe this at
> all.

This "nicely" demonstrates my issue with Gary. It's as if a deaf man who
cannot read wishes to instruct about listening.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[S. King]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:54:07 -0500, hank alrich wrote:

> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>> >speaker designers and audiophiles seem to be thinking that the
>> >function of a loudspeaker is to simply pass on a signal contained in
>> >the recording straight to your ears, and any interference from the
>> >room they are in is a nuisance variable to be eliminated with Sonex
>> >and similar. This is the "accuracy" crowd, and the search for more
>> >realistic reproduction has been thought of as a search for greater and
>> >greater accuracy.
>> >
>> >I could pretty much guarantee that this is Scott's thnking right now,
>> >and the idea of a field-type system has never occurred to him.
>>
>> NO.
>> NO IT IS NOT.
>> STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY M0UTH.
>>
>> You are doing it again. You are once again setting up a useless straw
>> man and saying "Scott believes this" when in fact if you have made ANY
>> attempt to read ANYTHING I have said you will reaize that I do not
>> believe this at all.
>
> This "nicely" demonstrates my issue with Gary. It's as if a deaf man who
> cannot read wishes to instruct about listening.



I'm sure that I'm not the only one who has noticed that Gary often sneaks
in a few words buried in his blather that suggest to me that he is not
talking about stereo at all. To wit...

<<<The final result is a huge, powerful, realistic acoustic event in which
the sounds that the recording engineer intends are heard as a huge model
of the live sound from wall to wall in front of you and all around you by
means of surround speakers to mimic the full reverberant field.>>>>

"By means of surround speakers to mimic...". How many? Hundreds?
Thousands? Two?

SteveK

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably
>> and demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're saying.
>> Until then...

> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your goal
> is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space.

Ambisonics already does that in terms of "directionality", if not "wavefront".

"Sonic holography" is rather like teleportation -- we know what the end result
would be, but how to go about achieving it is another matter.


> The problem is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared
> playback facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end
> really doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system
> owing to the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.

I can't believe you're saying that, Scott.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> Let me just say that the stereophonic system has nothing
>>> to do with the human hearing mechanism, in either the
>>> recording or the reproduction.
>>
>> This statement is sort-of correct, in that conventional stereo
>> recordings do not make full and/or proper use of the human
>> (directional) hearing mechanisms.
>>
>> But binaural, Ambisonic, and WFS systems /do/ make correct use of
>> these mechanisms.
>
> Let's say "complete" use rather than "correct" or "full."
>
> Stereophonic systems cannot accurately reproduce all sources in
> three-space in a sphere completely surrounding the listener, as would
> be necessary to make a perfect reproduction of an environmental
> source.
>
> But they can do well enough to get by, owing to deficiencies in the
> human hearing system. This is the trick that makes stereophony work.
>
>> When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably
>> and demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're
>> saying. Until then...
>
> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your
> goal is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space. The problem
> is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared playback
> facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end really
> doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system owing to
> the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
> --scott

Well, again, that would be a binaural system, and that is not what I am
talking about. I am saying that stereophonic is completely and totally
different system with completely different goals from the above.

The following discussion is strictly for those who are still interested in
the subject, is not intended as disrespectful to the great recording
engineers in the group whom I am indebted to as Hank says, and is strictly
and purely in an effort to explain a different approach to thinking about
the reproduction end of the puzzle.

William's statement that current stereo practice doesn't make full use of
human hearing mechanisms illustrates my point, that the natural tendency is
to think that it should have something to do with it. My statement that is
has NOTHING to do with it is intended to divorce your thinking from that
concept. It is not a process of recording or playing "ear signals" in any
way, shape, or form. It is a process of making sound in rooms.

There are fundamentally two ways of reproducing a sensory experience. You
can reproduce the direct sensory input, as with binaural, or you can
reproduce the object itself in front of you and just let your natural senses
(hearing) experience it all over again. This is the sound field
reconstruction idea in which we forget about human hearing and just work on
reproducing the orchestra itself and its various reflection patterns as they
might have been shaped in the original.

A visual example would be an aircraft enthusiast who just loves the B-29. He
wants to reproduce it in his own home so that he can just look at it over
and over again. There are two fundamentally different ways he can go about
this. One, the direct sensory input, would be to take a 3D photo of one and
then go home and play the two "eye signals" into his eyes by means of a
direct viewer like the Viewmaster or by a 3D projector with glasses.

The other way, the analogy that I want to make, would be to scan the
bejeezus out of the real airplane with whatever measurements, devices,
lasers, you want to, and then go home and make an actual model of the
airplane right there in your home in front of you, at whatever scale you can
afford. This would be the reconstruction theory and to many it would be much
more realistic to the enthusiast than the 3D picture. The airplane is now
very real in his room but is not an exact wavefront reconstruction of the
light waves striking any particular observer's eyes while the recording was
being made. This is a totally different process that no one had thought of
quite like that before. But there it was, the most realistic B-29 that he
had ever seen in his home, and the whole process had nothing whatsoever to
do with the human vision mechanism - the rods and cones, the spacing between
any particular person's eyes, their peripheral vision or focusing problems,
the shadowing of their heads, none of it. It was a revolutionary process of
just reconstructing the object itself and letting everyone just look at it!

And that is where I am coming from. We study not how we hear the original
sound but rather how to reconstruct that sound in our listening room. Not a
head-related system but the other one - the field-typr system in which we
study the nature of sound fields in rooms and how to do another one just
like the original in another space. The speakers are not shooting an
accurate copy of the "signal" toward your ears, but rather BEING the
original sound itself, together with the reverberant fields in ways that
mimic the original.

Rather than thinking of the process as taking a picture of the saxophone
player, we are making a new saxophone player in our room by placing a
speaker in a spot that is geometrically similar to where he was, giving it a
radiation pattern very similar to a saxophone's, and then just listening to
our new model of the recorded saxphone and enyoying the **** out of it.

This would not be an exact sound wave reconstruction but it would be a real
sound wave that behaves very similarly within your room, so much so that
most of the aspects of the live sound are actually present within your new
model without having to worry about the hearing mechanism, wavefront
reconstruction, wave field synthesis, Ambisonics, Sonic Holography,,
Ambiophonics, none of it. As for the mystery of stereophony, all we are
doing is extending the principle to multiple instruments by using more
speakers. You need at least two to take adantage of the principle of summing
localization, because then you can place any number of them between those
two. Their radiation patterns can then be made to mimic the general case
rather than an individual saxophone or piano, adjusted to the room, and
tested to make sure that it works for all recordings, not just today's.

If this helps please let me know. If it is a new way of thinking about the
process, let me know. If you violently disagree with the whole concept, tell
me where I went wrong. But as I said, I am working on a new speaker that
will be the first Image Model Projector that will purposely reconstruct
sound fields within your room by means of radiation pattern, rather than
shooting the sound toward your ears and trying to eliminate the room. As
William says, time will tell.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> NO.
> NO IT IS NOT.
> STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY M0UTH.

OK, you're right, sorry. I am just saying that the de facto practice in the
industry, and particularly it seems with recording engineers, is to use
speakers that have all of the drivers on one face, aimed at the listener's
ears, and to place sound deadening materials around the speaker end of the
room. If that is not your practice, then I am wrong about that. I just don't
recall you saying much about sound field reconstruction or multidirectional
speakers . But it is wrong to put words in your mouth and use you as an
example of recording engineering practice in general. The whole thread in
the original discussion was because Moulton or some of his people had said
that the Beolab 5 was fast becoming the standard among recording studios,
and I couldn't believe that.

Gary

[PStamler]

> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your
> goal is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space. The problem
> is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared playback
> facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end really
> doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system owing to
> the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
> --scott

Well, again, that would be a binaural system [snip]

No, it wouldn't. The sonic holography system is not a binaural system, and calling it one doesn't make it one. Straw man again.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably
>>> and demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're saying.
>>> Until then...
>
>> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your goal
>> is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space.
>
>Ambisonics already does that in terms of "directionality", if not "wavefront".
>
>"Sonic holography" is rather like teleportation -- we know what the end result
>would be, but how to go about achieving it is another matter.

Sure, we know all about achieving it. One method would use a spherical array
of considerable size with microphones spaced closer than a quarter wave at the
highest frequency of interest. We call it "holography" because rather than
record the sound itself we're recording the interference pattern in space
resulting from the sound.

This allows you to reproduce a wavefront accurately in 3-space. There have
been systems demonstrated in the past that do this (and I keep mentioning
Carrouso which is a very limited and scaled-down system but one that works
well in 2-space).

There was a lot of this research being done in the 1990s when inexpensive
digital multitrack systems became available and made it possible to do this
in a laboratory environment at a reasonable price.

>> The problem is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared
>> playback facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end
>> really doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system
>> owing to the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
>
>I can't believe you're saying that, Scott.

It's true, I have heard some 2-channel systems that sounded remarkably good.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your
>> goal is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space. The problem
>> is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared playback
>> facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end really
>> doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system owing to
>> the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
>
>Well, again, that would be a binaural system, and that is not what I am
>talking about. I am saying that stereophonic is completely and totally
>different system with completely different goals from the above.

NO.
Sonic holography is NOT stereophony and it is NOT binaural recording. It
is a still different system altogether.

I'm just going to stop right here because it's clear that you just aren't
going to get it no matter how hard anyone tries.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 4 Apr 2014 14:59:40 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>
>>>> When you have come up with some other system that is as comparably
>>>> and demonstrably good, then people will listen to what you're saying.
>>>> Until then...
>>
>>> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your goal
>>> is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space.
>>
>>Ambisonics already does that in terms of "directionality", if not "wavefront".
>>
>>"Sonic holography" is rather like teleportation -- we know what the end result
>>would be, but how to go about achieving it is another matter.
>
>Sure, we know all about achieving it. One method would use a spherical array
>of considerable size with microphones spaced closer than a quarter wave at the
>highest frequency of interest. We call it "holography" because rather than
>record the sound itself we're recording the interference pattern in space
>resulting from the sound.
>
>This allows you to reproduce a wavefront accurately in 3-space. There have
>been systems demonstrated in the past that do this (and I keep mentioning
>Carrouso which is a very limited and scaled-down system but one that works
>well in 2-space).
>
>There was a lot of this research being done in the 1990s when inexpensive
>digital multitrack systems became available and made it possible to do this
>in a laboratory environment at a reasonable price.
>
>>> The problem is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared
>>> playback facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end
>>> really doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system
>>> owing to the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
>>
>>I can't believe you're saying that, Scott.
>
>It's true, I have heard some 2-channel systems that sounded remarkably good.
>--scott

The problem with the sphere of microphones is fundamental. They record
an expanding wavefront moving outwards. The playback is a contracting
wavefront moving inwards - a totally different thing.

Certainly it can make for a credible spatial field, just nothing to do
with the one that was recorded.

d

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>Rather than thinking of the process as taking a picture of the saxophone
>player, we are making a new saxophone player in our room by placing a
>speaker in a spot that is geometrically similar to where he was, giving it a
>radiation pattern very similar to a saxophone's, and then just listening to
>our new model of the recorded saxphone and enyoying the **** out of it.
>
Can you elaborate on the above. To me at least, it comes over as gobbledygook.

What happens when the sax player unobligingly stands, say, at a central point in
the band , thus not at the same angular geometric relationship as the speaker?

And how would your savvy loudspeaker know how to adjust its radiation pattern to
discriminate and accomodate two musical instruments that can play notes in the
same frequency range, but have significantly different sound projection
patterns?

It's hard to shuck off the lingering impression that you're merely bouncing the
music all over the shop in your room...no doubt to get a lush, enjoyable,
ambient wash...and you're doggedly determined to underpin and dignify this with
a grand overarching theory.
--
Tom McCreadie

Tinnitus is a pain in the neck

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

>>> The problem is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared
>>> playback facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end
>>> really doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system
>>> owing to the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.

>> I can't believe you're saying that, Scott.

> It's true, I have heard some 2-channel systems that sounded remarkably good.

I've been living with surround since 1970. I would never go back to POS.

Stereo can sound exceptionally good -- but you need really good speakers, and
all other things being equal (which, in my systems, has always been true),
surround blows stereo out of the water.

Unless, perhaps, you have a pair of Plasmatronics. The trouble with these is
that they are far too good for anything but the very best recordings.
Everything else sounds like a recording -- a bad recording.

I just came in from the living room, where I was working with my Fosgate Tate
II SQ decoder. I got it working again, about which I will report in a few
days.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...

> Can you elaborate on the above? To me at least, it comes
> over as gobbledygook.

No argument. It does to me, too.

[nickbatz]

I call "HItler" early this time.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 4/4/2014 8:24 PM, nickbatz wrote:
> I call "HItler" early this time.
>


To quote an Esurance commercial:
~~
"That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works."
~~

Somehow the above quote seems to summarize
oh so much of this Beolab 5 Thread.

==
Later....
Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>The problem with the sphere of microphones is fundamental. They record
>an expanding wavefront moving outwards. The playback is a contracting
>wavefront moving inwards - a totally different thing.

Once you have mapped the wavefront across some space, transforming it into
something you can play back with non-omnidirectional speakers is just a
matter of mathematics.

>Certainly it can make for a credible spatial field, just nothing to do
>with the one that was recorded.

It's not a 1:1 mapping for sure.

A good overview on the basic theory can be found in "Adaptive Wave Field
Synthesis for Sound Field Reproduction" by Gauthier and Berry, AES
Preprint 7300.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Tom McCreadie" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>Rather than thinking of the process as taking a picture of the saxophone
>>player, we are making a new saxophone player in our room by placing a
>>speaker in a spot that is geometrically similar to where he was, giving it
>>a
>>radiation pattern very similar to a saxophone's, and then just listening
>>to
>>our new model of the recorded saxphone and enyoying the **** out of it.
>>
> Can you elaborate on the above. To me at least, it comes over as
> gobbledygook.
>
> What happens when the sax player unobligingly stands, say, at a central
> point in
> the band , thus not at the same angular geometric relationship as the
> speaker?
>
> And how would your savvy loudspeaker know how to adjust its radiation
> pattern to
> discriminate and accomodate two musical instruments that can play notes in
> the
> same frequency range, but have significantly different sound projection
> patterns?
>
> It's hard to shuck off the lingering impression that you're merely
> bouncing the
> music all over the shop in your room...no doubt to get a lush, enjoyable,
> ambient wash...and you're doggedly determined to underpin and dignify this
> with
> a grand overarching theory.
> --
> Tom McCreadie

Work with me here people. It's not all that hard.

I covered both of those questions right in the post. If you need to read it
again, please do. I have found that the communication of a new idea is
complicated by the reader's putting his own thoughts between the lines and
not reading what the author is actually saying.

I said the miracle of stereophony is that you can take two coherent sources
(speakers) and the principle of summing localization lets us place
instrumental images anywhere between them. Is that explanation enough? do we
all know about that so far?

What I said about radiation pattern was that we could use an aggregate
pattern - a generalization of all of the instruments - and adjust it to the
room so that what you hear when you are sitting down is an image model
pattern that is much more similar to the live pattern than the traditional
thinking of all direct sound from the speakers etc etc. In small room
acoustics (Hi Fi) it is even more important to get the D/R ratio down
because we are sitting much closer to the speakers than we were to the
orchestra when we were there. The resultant image model in the home then
resembles the live model much more closely and sounds more realistic.

This is not gobbledegook but is the reason multidirectional speakers are
preferred by many listeners for the spacious image that they can float
within your room. The technical reason for this impression is that if you
balance the direct and the reflected just right and position the speakers
just right you get an image shift toward the reflecting surfaces that gets
the sound "out" of the speakers (making the speakers themselves sonically
disappear) and and forms the spacious, deep soundstage that we enjoy so much
when we achieve it.

Gary
>
> Tinnitus is a pain in the neck
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, sonic holography of course, which is the real solution if your
>>> goal is accurate reproduction of a wavefront in 3-space. The problem
>>> is that it's difficult, requires a very carefully prepared playback
>>> facility, requires a whole lot of channels, and in the end really
>>> doesn't sound that much better than a good 2-channel system owing to
>>> the aforementioned deficiencies in the human organism.
>>
>>Well, again, that would be a binaural system, and that is not what I am
>>talking about. I am saying that stereophonic is completely and totally
>>different system with completely different goals from the above.
>
> NO.
> Sonic holography is NOT stereophony and it is NOT binaural recording. It
> is a still different system altogether.
>
> I'm just going to stop right here because it's clear that you just aren't
> going to get it no matter how hard anyone tries.
> --scott

Yes of course it is a binaural system. The basis of Sonic Holography is the
elimination of crosstalk method for loudspeaker binaural by Atal and
Schroeder, Damaske and Mellert. The generic term for this process is called
TRADIS (True Reproduction of All Directional Information by Stereophony). It
isolates the channels to each ear by sending a compensating signal to the
opposite ear such that the left ear hears only the left channel and the same
for the right. Every 5 or 10 years some new genius re-invents this system
under a new name. Sonic Holography was one of those.

What we should understand about this is that it should be used only with
dummy head recordings (binaural) because doing it with normal stereo
recordings produces wider than natural soundstaging that can extend to a
full hemisphere in front of you. You shouldn't reproduce binaural recordings
in stereo, and you shouldn't reproduce stereo recordings with binaural
techniques. Two separate and incompatible systems.

Ambisonics is a form of surround sound and Sonic Holography and Ambiophonics
are forms of binaural reproduction.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> I covered both of those questions right in the post. If you need to read
> it again, please do. I have found that the communication of a new idea
> is complicated by the reader's putting his own thoughts between the lines
> and not reading what the author is actually saying.

It's called "baggage", and everyone is guilty of opening it at the wrong time.

Here be the facts, Gary...

Making playback sound as if it's occurring in the room is a good idea, but
it's been rejected, because it's unworkable for large performing groups, and
even for small ones runs into the problem of whether the room has the
appropriate acoustics.

The correct //practical// approach is to make the room a bit on the dead side,
then make recordings that contain the rooms acoustics, or use a hall
synthesizer to mimic the sound of a hall. Such systems are both practical, and
actually work.

When will you get this through your thick little skull? You're like a terrier
worrying a rat to death.

Now leave us alone!

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Yes of course it is a binaural system. The basis of Sonic Holography is the
>elimination of crosstalk method for loudspeaker binaural by Atal and
>Schroeder, Damaske and Mellert. The generic term for this process is called
>TRADIS (True Reproduction of All Directional Information by Stereophony). It
>isolates the channels to each ear by sending a compensating signal to the
>opposite ear such that the left ear hears only the left channel and the same
>for the right. Every 5 or 10 years some new genius re-invents this system
>under a new name. Sonic Holography was one of those.

No, I'm talking about wavefront synthesis.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

One other point...

I dislike saying "Gary, you're outnumbered on this." The history of science
and technology offers many examples of people in the minority who turned out
to be right.

But as you have yet to /prove/ your theories using known psychoacoustics, or
/demonstrate/ their validity in real-world practice, I will fall back on the
oldest and intellectually weakest argument there is...

We're right, and you're wrong.

We're ag'in ya, Gary. And you'd better accept that.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> One other point...
>
> I dislike saying "Gary, you're outnumbered on this." The history of
> science
> and technology offers many examples of people in the minority who turned
> out
> to be right.
>
> But as you have yet to /prove/ your theories using known psychoacoustics,
> or
> /demonstrate/ their validity in real-world practice, I will fall back on
> the
> oldest and intellectually weakest argument there is...
>
> We're right, and you're wrong.
>
> We're ag'in ya, Gary. And you'd better accept that.

Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place....

But seriously, let me just quote Schopenhauer here:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Arthur Schopenhauer

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>Yes of course it is a binaural system. The basis of Sonic Holography is the
>>elimination of crosstalk method for loudspeaker binaural by Atal and
>>Schroeder, Damaske and Mellert. The generic term for this process is called
>>TRADIS (True Reproduction of All Directional Information by Stereophony). It
>>isolates the channels to each ear by sending a compensating signal to the
>>opposite ear such that the left ear hears only the left channel and the same
>>for the right. Every 5 or 10 years some new genius re-invents this system
>>under a new name. Sonic Holography was one of those.
>
> No, I'm talking about wavefront synthesis.
> --scott

Maybe you are thinking of "Wave Field Synthesis," a system dreamed up by some folks at the Delft university that is completely impractical, reminiscnet of the Bell Labs "curtain of sound" wherein a zillion microphones record the sound waves from the orchestra and then a zillion speakers pass it on as waves rather than point sources. Something like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis


https://www.google.com/search?q=wave+field+synthesis&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS549US550&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1DNAU8_FFMPNsQSMnoK4BA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1360&bih=653

This is a great reference to illustrate the lunacy that some of this stuff inspires, and also to show the "simplicity principle" that has struck me from time to time. Namely, the answer to some of life's probing questions usually ends up being the simplest solution, not some hare-brained wild goose chase into post grad calculus, nuclear physics, and rocket science.

Here is an example that is almost the intersection of my Image Model Theory and their WFS:

From the article http://www.holophony.net/Wavefieldsynthesis.htm

3.2.3 The model based approach
Wave Field Synthesis provides two different ways in this matter. The simplest method is the model-based approach. According to the mirror source model, the starting points of the reflections are calculated from the recording room geometry. The calculated distance of each of these virtual sound source positions in regard to each of the loudspeaker positions determines run-times and levels. The wall reflection factors are included into this calculation, as well as the directional radiation pattern of the primary source. However, such a procedure is practicable only to restore direct wave and first reflections in the recording room. The huge amount of discrete reflections in the reverberation tail makes the correct reconstruction of the complete sound field impossible with the model-based approach.

In other words, these geniuses fail to see that all of this reconstruction can be simplified by just reflecting some of the recorded sound off the room surfaces to make all of this stuff happen automatically right in your real acoustic space in front of you. This is due to what you have said, the ear's ability to be easily fooled into about a 95% solution in the system that we already have.

All that plus, they are going into more cartwheels trying to figure out how to synthesize the wave field for more than the sweet spot, which of course complicates their little synthesis no end. But all they have to do, what I am intending in my new speaker, is to use what Mark Davis discovered for the Soundfield One speaker, use distance/intensity trading for the off center listener to keep central images stabilized. I tried it in my last prototype and it works fabulously! And without synthesizing every wave particle coming out of any instrument! And you can just add a center speaker to seal the deal!

Finally, they, like most of you, are all concerned that the local room acoustics will prevent the playback of my model from mimicking, or modeling, that of the recorded acoustic. So they, like most of you, call for deadening the sound in the room and sometimes using a multiplicity of extra speakers and signal processing with time delay and convolution of reverberant field acoustics of various concert halls with the recording and - I think I have lost interest already in the needless complicaiton of the simplest solution!

Which is - if you can just get the spatial part more correct by a single reflection off the walls nearest the speakers, you can make the model sound like any recorded acoustic space by forcing the spatially arrayed second hit to come from incident angles that are geometrically similar to the original, then damping down the REST of the sound in your room and letting the temporal aspect contained in the recording complete the simulation.

I have remarked before on this simplification that "it's all done with mirrors." I submit that you guys cannot know by reading all of my stuff whether it works or not, and I understand that. I just love talking about it and look forward to hearing the first speakers ever to be designed along these principles and showing them to others for further study.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>Maybe you are thinking of "Wave Field Synthesis," a system dreamed up by =
>some folks at the Delft university that is completely impractical, =
>reminiscnet of the Bell Labs "curtain of sound" wherein a zillion =
>microphones record the sound waves from the orchestra and then a zillion =
>speakers pass it on as waves rather than point sources. Something like =
>that.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_field_synthesis

This is what most people today mean when they speak of "Sonic Holography,"
yes. This is what is required to actually reproduce a sound field in 3-space.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 05/04/2014 17:40, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One other point...
>>
>> I dislike saying "Gary, you're outnumbered on this." The history of
>> science
>> and technology offers many examples of people in the minority who turned
>> out
>> to be right.
>>
>> But as you have yet to /prove/ your theories using known psychoacoustics,
>> or
>> /demonstrate/ their validity in real-world practice, I will fall back on
>> the
>> oldest and intellectually weakest argument there is...
>>
>> We're right, and you're wrong.
>>
>> We're ag'in ya, Gary. And you'd better accept that.
>
> Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place....
>
> But seriously, let me just quote Schopenhauer here:
>
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
> violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
>
Unless it turns out to be absolute, utter nonsense. Which, in my humble
opinion, and the expressed opinion of everyone else in this thread, is
the case here.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you have yet to show that
your particular pudding is even remotely edible as of yet.

Maybe you could invite some of the experts here to listen to a system
set up using your theory, and compare it with the commonest playback
system, which is used because it works very well in practice.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> But as you have yet to /prove/ your theories using known
>> psychoacoustics, or /demonstrate/ their validity in real-world
>> practice...
>
> But seriously, let me just quote Schopenhauer here:
>
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
> self-evident.

Quoting a platitude is neither proving nor demonstrating. It does
highlight your inability to prove or demonstrate, and your preference
for fallacy, ignorance, and platitude. What you have demonstrated is
your inability to put up, or to shut up.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

> Maybe you could invite some of the experts here to listen
> to a system set up using your theory, and compare it with
> the commonest playback system, which is used because
> it works very well in practice.

I've suggested something similar, but -- like most attempts at systematic
analysis -- it's not easy to do. I don't think Gary wants to put out the
effort.

[Luxey]

Words, words, ...

Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does not understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider to be knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.

just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not theory from wishfull thinking.

When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not true. If he was, would not be asked to do so.

So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get through. Awell as of proverbial buzz.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Maybe you could invite some of the experts here to listen
>> to a system set up using your theory, and compare it with
>> the commonest playback system, which is used because
>> it works very well in practice.
>
> I've suggested something similar, but -- like most attempts at systematic
> analysis -- it's not easy to do. I don't think Gary wants to put out the
> effort.

Why would you say that William? I am building some new speakers, planning on
doing some testing against whatever comers I can get, and write a paper for
the Spatial Audio conference. What more can I do?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...

> Unless it turns out to be absolute, utter nonsense. Which, in my humble
> opinion, and the expressed opinion of everyone else in this thread, is the
> case here.
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you have yet to show that
> your particular pudding is even remotely edible as of yet.
>
> Maybe you could invite some of the experts here to listen to a system set
> up using your theory, and compare it with the commonest playback system,
> which is used because it works very well in practice.

I am in central Florida, Lakeland, and you are cordially invited to have a
listen. I would prefer to wait until I get the new speakers set up and
dialed in, but my current system demonstrates it very well. And has for the
last 25 years in my dedicated listening room.

You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying with such a
silly statement?

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 06/04/2014 05:14, hank alrich wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Unless it turns out to be absolute, utter nonsense. Which, in my humble
>>> opinion, and the expressed opinion of everyone else in this thread, is the
>>> case here.
>>>
>>> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and you have yet to show that
>>> your particular pudding is even remotely edible as of yet.
>>>
>>> Maybe you could invite some of the experts here to listen to a system set
>>> up using your theory, and compare it with the commonest playback system,
>>> which is used because it works very well in practice.
>>
>> I am in central Florida, Lakeland, and you are cordially invited to have a
>> listen. I would prefer to wait until I get the new speakers set up and
>> dialed in, but my current system demonstrates it very well. And has for the
>> last 25 years in my dedicated listening room.
>>
>> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying with such a
>> silly statement?
>>
>> Gary
>
> Bose.
>
Yup.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> Words, words, ...
>
> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does not
> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider to be
> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>
> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not theory
> from wishfull thinking.
>
> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not true. If
> he was, would not be asked to do so.
>
> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get through.
> Awell as of proverbial buzz.

I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will come.

Gary

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> I've suggested something similar, but -- like most attempts at
>> systematic analysis -- it's not easy to do. I don't think Gary wants
>> to put out the effort.

> Why would you say that William? I am building some new speakers,
> planning on doing some testing against whatever comers I can get,
> and write a paper for the Spatial Audio conference. What more can I do?

It's not what you can do. It's what you should do -- must do -- the hard work
that reveals whether what you're doing is correct. You haven't done it.

This rarely occurs in /any/ industry. Products are thrown on the market
because they look like good ideas, not because the necessary work has been
done. Polaroid is an example of a company that tried to get things right
before selling them. QUAD is an even better example. The ESL-63 speaker was
conceived in 1963 -- but wasn't released until 1981.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
> with such a silly statement?

One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought Bose
901s, for God's sake!

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
>> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
>> with such a silly statement?
>
>One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought Bose
>901s, for God's sake!

I've been listening to Schoenburg for years and I still don't understand it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I've suggested something similar, but -- like most attempts at
> >> systematic analysis -- it's not easy to do. I don't think Gary wants
> >> to put out the effort.
>
> > Why would you say that William? I am building some new speakers,
> > planning on doing some testing against whatever comers I can get,
> > and write a paper for the Spatial Audio conference. What more can I do?
>
> It's not what you can do. It's what you should do -- must do -- the hard work
> that reveals whether what you're doing is correct. You haven't done it.
>
> This rarely occurs in /any/ industry. Products are thrown on the market
> because they look like good ideas, not because the necessary work has been
> done. Polaroid is an example of a company that tried to get things right
> before selling them. QUAD is an even better example. The ESL-63 speaker was
> conceived in 1963 -- but wasn't released until 1981.

Yamaha devoted two-and-a-half years to R&D of the DX7 after licensing
the technology. They thereafter proceeded to sell more than a
quarter-million units.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[polymod]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I've suggested something similar, but -- like most attempts at
> >> systematic analysis -- it's not easy to do. I don't think Gary wants
> >> to put out the effort.
>
> > Why would you say that William? I am building some new speakers,
> > planning on doing some testing against whatever comers I can get,
> > and write a paper for the Spatial Audio conference. What more can I do?
>
> It's not what you can do. It's what you should do -- must do -- the hard
> work
> that reveals whether what you're doing is correct. You haven't done it.
>
> This rarely occurs in /any/ industry. Products are thrown on the market
> because they look like good ideas, not because the necessary work has been
> done. Polaroid is an example of a company that tried to get things right
> before selling them. QUAD is an even better example. The ESL-63 speaker
> was
> conceived in 1963 -- but wasn't released until 1981.

Yamaha devoted two-and-a-half years to R&D of the DX7 after licensing
the technology. They thereafter proceeded to sell more than a
quarter-million units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And a ground breaking synth it was at the time.
I have one of the first units produced and it's still in use today!

Poly

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> > "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
> >
> >> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
> >> with such a silly statement?
> >
> > One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought
> > Bose 901s, for God's sake!
>
> Mine are still taking up storage space in my attic. I still want to fix
> them for some experiments, but other things have priority right now.

A waterproof coating makes them suitable for use as potted plant stands.

Filled with cement they make decent bouy anchors.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> I completely understand how you wouldn't understand Schoenberg.
> We spent half a semester in Music Theory II on Tone Row theory
> and it's almost useless. I'd put Schoenberg and Cage in roughly the
> same space.

They're actually quite different.

Anyhow, try "The Rest Is Noise" by Alex Ross. This should clear up some
questions. I wish I'd had this book 20 years ago.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 4/6/2014 11:59 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>>
>>> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
>>> with such a silly statement?
>>
>> One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought
>> Bose 901s, for God's sake!
>
> Mine are still taking up storage space in my attic. I still want to fix
> them for some experiments, but other things have priority right now.
>


Hmm, Bose and experiments evokes thoughts of a
mad scientist torturing small animals or some such. 8-)

==
Later....
Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--

[S. King]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Luxey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Words, words, ...
>>
>> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does not
>> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider to be
>> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>>
>> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
>> theory from wishfull thinking.
>>
>> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not true.
>> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
>>
>> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get through.
>> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
>
> I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will come.
>
> Gary

I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread, "Great
googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but it
sure didn't hurt it either.

SteveK

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Ron C > wrote:
>> On 4/6/2014 11:59 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
>>>>> with such a silly statement?
>>>>
>>>> One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought
>>>> Bose 901s, for God's sake!
>>>
>>> Mine are still taking up storage space in my attic. I still want to fix
>>> them for some experiments, but other things have priority right now.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm, Bose and experiments evokes thoughts of a
>> mad scientist torturing small animals or some such. 8-)
>>
>> ==
>> Later....
>> Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
>> --

>Don't tell PETA.

People for the Ethnical Treatment of Audio?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> It's not what you can do. It's what you should do -- must do -- the hard
> work that reveals whether what you're doing is correct. You haven't done
> it.
>
> This rarely occurs in /any/ industry. Products are thrown on the market
> because they look like good ideas, not because the necessary work has been
> done. Polaroid is an example of a company that tried to get things right
> before selling them. QUAD is an even better example. The ESL-63 speaker
> was conceived in 1963 -- but wasn't released until 1981.

Think about this for a moment William. All of these famous audio biggies did
all of this work over all of these years already, right? Why should it be
necessary for each of us to do it all over again every time we have
something to add to it? Why can't the knowledge just build on itself? I
think that is most of the idea of having the AES, ASA, NAB, SMPTE, and so
on.

The Bose research project at MIT was from 1956 to 1968. His report details
the difficulties and learning curve that they went through in a quest to
find out, basically, why home audio sounds nothing like live sound. They
went into the concert hall, measured and recorded with binaural heads, did
computer simulations to check out the "perfect point source" legend. Made a
first unsuccessful design, the 2201 "Beehive" speaker, that still didn't
sound right. Finally discovered the difference in sound fields between live
and most "hi fi."

So I try it and buy it, and then discover a very important detail that they
left out of the instruction manual. Speaker positioning is so important with
a reflecting type design that getting it wrong can make reviewers and
amateurs think that there is something wrong with the design.

I study why this happens, why it is so important, what is really happening
with the reflected sound and discover image modeling technique to show it
more visually. I present a paper at the AES on the subject, write articles,
join newsgroups, study more about the subject.

I build a new home around a dedicated listening room to build the ultimate
image model based field type system, complete with surround speakers. It is
very successful. I build three prototype speakers along the lines of my IMT,
the last one winning a match up with some box speakers and the Linkwitz
Orions.

I commission a DIY engineer in Indiana to build me a really good pair of
Image Model Projectors to test out the theory with some variable pots on the
front faces to adjuxt the D?R ratio and the distance/intensity trading
effect for image stabilization.

To you I may be an unknown, a boob who wandered into Best Buy one day. But
if the above is not enough "work" for you, then I'm afraid that is all I
have. This thing has obsessed me for over 30 years now, and hopefully will
come to some fruition or conclusion soon. But I would rather not be shucked
off by people who don't know a thing about me and don't have as much
interest in the subject, as someone who has not done "the work" or hasn't
listened to some "really good" speakers, because they have read that I am
using Bose 901s in my home system for reasons that they will never
understand.

My new speakers will hopefully build on all of the above, including what the
Bose research and my experience with the 901 have taught me, plus Mark
Davis's work on the Soundfield One speaker, which also had some missing
elements that mine will incorporate.

I know you cannot know all of this, but just hold on for a little longer and
I will let you know if it is successful. I don't see how it can't be,
because I have tried all of the elements of the design with my 3 prototypes,
and learned some new things from each one.

Gary

[Sean Conolly]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...

"I just love talking about it" ... Gary

That part we figured out. Methinks it's better to talk less and listen more
around these parts, but suit yourself.

I do sincerely hope I get a chance to hear your speakers someday. Technical
arguments aside, someone with as much passion as you has got to build
something interesting at the very least.

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
>
>>Don't tell PETA.
>
> People for the Ethnical Treatment of Audio?
>

That one is going on a tee shirt!

Sean

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
> Jeff Henig > writes:
>
>> Ron C > wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2014 11:59 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>>> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You think I haven't heard anything else? What are you implying
>>>>>> with such a silly statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> One can hear something and not understand what they're hearing. I bought
>>>>> Bose 901s, for God's sake!
>>>>
>>>> Mine are still taking up storage space in my attic. I still want to fix
>>>> them for some experiments, but other things have priority right now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, Bose and experiments evokes thoughts of a
>>> mad scientist torturing small animals or some such. 8-)
>>>
>>> ==
>>> Later....
>>> Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
>>> --
>
>> Don't tell PETA.
>
> People for the Ethnical Treatment of Audio?
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>

People for the Electronic Treatment of Audio.

--
Les Cargill

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:


- snips -

>> People for the Ethnical Treatment of Audio?
>>
>> Frank
>> Mobile Audio

>Bahahahahahahahah!!!!!!

>Nice.

>You had me at ethnical.

Sheesh. That was a typo, but in retrospect, I actually like the typo!!

Frank

--

[hank alrich]

S. King > wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > "Luxey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Words, words, ...
> >>
> >> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does not
> >> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider to be
> >> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
> >>
> >> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
> >> theory from wishfull thinking.
> >>
> >> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not true.
> >> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
> >>
> >> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get through.
> >> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
> >
> > I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will come.
> >
> > Gary
>
> I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread, "Great
> googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but it
> sure didn't hurt it either.
>
> SteveK

Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first language. I
conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in Luxey's
language.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> "I just love talking about it" ... Gary
>
> That part we figured out. Methinks it's better to talk less and listen
> more around these parts, but suit yourself.

Well, I have listened to a few speakers in my time. But this is a discussion
group.

> I do sincerely hope I get a chance to hear your speakers someday.
> Technical arguments aside, someone with as much passion as you has got to
> build something interesting at the very least.
>
> Sean

Thanks Sean. There are some DIY builder's events up in Indiana and Ohio I
think that you might be able to see this new speaker I have been talking
about. My engineer friend will be entering mine along with one of his
designs, both of which he has engineered and is testing right now. Mine will
be called the IMP-1, for Image Model Projector (the first).

It's amazing to me how few positive responses a new audio idea gets in an
audio discussion group! I think Schopenhauer was right!

Gary

[Luxey]

понедељак, 07. април 2014. 06.18.09 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
> S. King > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > "Luxey" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > >> Words, words, ...
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does not
>
> > >> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider to be
>
> > >> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
>
> > >> theory from wishfull thinking.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not true..
>
> > >> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get through..
>
> > >> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
>
> > >
>
> > > I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will come.
>
> > >
>
> > > Gary
>
> >
>
> > I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread, "Great
>
> > googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but it
>
> > sure didn't hurt it either.
>
> >
>
> > SteveK
>
>
>
> Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first language. I
>
> conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in Luxey's
>
> language.
>
>
>
> --
>
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to be on
the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly, but the meaning
would be lost.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Luxey wrote:
> Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
> My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to
> be on the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly,
> but the meaning would be lost.

I understand Luxey. You have some really powerful arguments welled up inside
you, but if you told me I wouldn't understand, so you just summarize with a
couple of insults.

Fair enough.

Gary

[Luxey]

On Monday, 7 April 2014 13:02:35 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Luxey wrote:
>
> > Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
>
> > My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to
>
> > be on the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly,
>
> > but the meaning would be lost.
>
>
>
> I understand Luxey. You have some really powerful arguments welled up inside
>
> you, but if you told me I wouldn't understand, so you just summarize with a
>
> couple of insults.
>
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>
> Gary

Not exactly. When you give some explanation on how "modeling" actually works,
I may say you were right. As long as you keep saying: "modeling works in the
way we don't listen to a recorded sound but to a model of original source"
it's just bull****, wishful thinking, nothing. I mean, you can't even decide if you talk about surround (as set up in your supposedly great listening room),
or about stereo. Claim is stereo, but when challenged you say "come to hear
my surround", and so on. Bull****. Your speakers won awards? When and where,
articles, pictures, diagrams, ...????? Your AES paper says nothing. There are tons of references but no quotes. Total crap.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> To you I may be an unknown, a boob who wandered into Best Buy one day.

Don't try to personalize this. The issue is your lack of an understanding of
how scientific research is supposed to work. You refuse to listen to people
with more experience, who know better.

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary, one of the marks of an intelligent person is that they //welcome//
criticism. All //you// do is defend your current beliefs. That's indefensible.

Irving M "Bud" Fried was a lawyer, but he designed some good speakers, partly
out of luck, but mostly because he had a good grasp of what needed to be done.

He once replied to a reviewer that criticism did little good, unless it
included what was needed to make the product better. This was disingenuous, as
it isn't the reviewer's job to do the designer's work for him. But Bud
honestly welcomed criticism, because he knew that no one understands
everything.

When you start acknowledging your own vast ignorance, then you have opened the
possibility of progressing. Not until then.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> I can understand the disagreement with my ideas, but why are
> some responders so vile in their contempt for a new idea?

Contempt for new ideas is normal human behavior. But in this case, your ideas
don't fit with what's currently known, nor do they supersede them in a
plausible way. Furthermore, you refuse to apply "good science" to your work.
You have no understanding of how to /analyze/ what you're doing, and make
correct experimental choices. Hence, you are ridiculed.


> Why wouldn't everyone here be as interested in this subject as I am?

Because the issues you raise have largely been resolved, practically and/or
theoretically.

I own hundreds of SACD and BD Audio recordings that include the concert-hall
acoustics. I have hall synthesizers that can apply the acoustics of good
venues to any recording, fully under my control.

Why would I have the /least/ interest in a system that requires special
speakers of significantly lower quality than those I own? Why?


> If you have some counterpoints, just give them to me, but some of the
> comments go beyond the usual mockery that a new idea has to go through.

We've explained the weakness of your beliefs over and over and over and over
and over -- but you refuse to make any effort to understand them. You're stuck
with a particular Tonweltungschauung, * and won't let go.

* "Sound-world view". In German you can string words together to get just
about anything you want!


> Have you seen Bob Carver's new offering?
> http://bobcarvercorp.com/amazinglinesource.html

It's hardly "new". The theoretical advantages of line sources have been known
for decades. Infinity and, yes, Carver, have produced such speakers. You can
buy German orthodynamic drivers and stack them to create a line source.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>I can understand the disagreement with my ideas, but why are some responders
>so vile in their contempt for a new idea? Why wouldn't everyone here be as
>interested in this subject as I am? If you have some counterpoints, just
>give them to me, but some of the comments go beyond the usual mockery that a
>new idea has to go through.

Because you haven't actually described any new ideas, you have just done a lot
of handwaving and not actually explained any actual theory. On top of that
you have been basically dismissed away a century of fundamental research as
being useless.

And partly because you seem to be trying to solve a problem that nobody else
in the world recognizes as a problem.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[S. King]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:23:13 -0700, Luxey wrote:

> понедељак, 07. април 2014. 06.18.09 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
>> S. King > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > "Luxey" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > ...
>>
>> > >> Words, words, ...
>>
>>
>> > >>
>> > >> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does
>> > >> not
>>
>> > >> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider
>> > >> to be
>>
>> > >> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>>
>>
>> > >>
>> > >> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
>>
>> > >> theory from wishfull thinking.
>>
>>
>> > >>
>> > >> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not
>> > >> true.
>>
>> > >> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
>>
>>
>> > >>
>> > >> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get
>> > >> through.
>>
>> > >> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will
>> > > come.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > Gary
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread,
>> > "Great
>>
>> > googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but
>> > it
>>
>> > sure didn't hurt it either.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > SteveK
>>
>>
>>
>> Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first language.
>> I
>>
>> conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in
>> Luxey's
>>
>> language.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>>
>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>>
>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>
> Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
> My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to be
> on the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly, but the
> meaning would be lost.

And, just to be clear, my quote of Mike River's "Great googly-moogly" have
nothing to do with anything posted by anyone and everything to do with the
pure pleasure of speaking a bit of inoffensive nonsense, while others are
trying so hard to be serious.

SteveK

[S. King]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:44:06 +0000, Jeff Henig wrote:

> "S. King" > wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:23:13 -0700, Luxey wrote:
>>
>>> понедељак, 07. април 2014. 06.18.09 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
>>>> S. King > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "Luxey" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Words, words, ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does
>>>>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>>>> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider
>>>>>>> to be
>>>>
>>>>>>> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
>>>>
>>>>>>> theory from wishfull thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not
>>>>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get
>>>>>>> through.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will
>>>>>> come.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread,
>>>>> "Great
>>>>
>>>>> googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but
>>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>> sure didn't hurt it either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> SteveK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first
>>>> language.
>>>> I
>>>>
>>>> conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in
>>>> Luxey's
>>>>
>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>>>>
>>>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>>>>
>>>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>>>
>>> Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
>>> My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to be
>>> on the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly, but
>>> the meaning would be lost.
>>
>> And, just to be clear, my quote of Mike River's "Great googly-moogly"
>> have nothing to do with anything posted by anyone and everything to do
>> with the pure pleasure of speaking a bit of inoffensive nonsense, while
>> others are trying so hard to be serious.
>>
>> SteveK
>
> C'mon, mang. Dis is serious bidness.

Which means that technical terms like "garbage", and "lame", and "Great
googly moogly" become even more important to assure the clarity of
opposing arguments. So there.

SteveK

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Gary, one of the marks of an intelligent person is that they //welcome//
> criticism. All //you// do is defend your current beliefs. That's
> indefensible.
>
> Irving M "Bud" Fried was a lawyer, but he designed some good speakers,
> partly out of luck, but mostly because he had a good grasp of what needed
> to be done.
>
> He once replied to a reviewer that criticism did little good, unless it
> included what was needed to make the product better. This was
> disingenuous, as it isn't the reviewer's job to do the designer's work for
> him. But Bud honestly welcomed criticism, because he knew that no one
> understands everything.
>
> When you start acknowledging your own vast ignorance, then you have opened
> the possibility of progressing. Not until then.

Acknowledge my vast ignorance on my pet subject William? I have aleady told
you about my learning curve on this subject. The way it works is first a
question arises about an issue that you are interested in. Then you learn
everything you can about it - what others know and have done in the area,
what they have found. If that doesn't provide the answer to the question,
you start in on your own avenues of investigation until it hits, or else you
keep on keepin on until it does.

I have said that the answer is usually the simplest of many ideas, paths,
theories. Hard to explain that, it's just what I have found in the past.

You then should decide whether it is an important discovery, imiportant
enough to tell the world and go through the grief that trying to change
previous mindsets will cause. I think this one is, or I wouldn't be so
obsessed by it. Why? Because it is a whole new way of looking at a problem
that has vexed an entire industry for - well, ever since stereo was
invented. The interest in it to this day is indicated by all of the theories
on spatial audio, all of the different bases for loudspeaker design, the
planned conferences, the university studies, the many articles and books on
speakers and rooms.

And so I tell about it, if the group is interested and I keep getting
questions. I have answered all of the questions, explained beyond most
questions, trying to help them gain some of my insight that I have attained
in this long term study. I have never found any info or data that
contradicts any part of it; on the contrary.

So no, I am not going to fold upon the first person who disagrees with some
part or statement - what kind of idiot would? Hopefully I answer and we
press on. I haven't received any questions that I haven't thought about a
hundred times already and answered for myself. It is very difficult to argue
with the vague statements about my incompetence, my lack of understanding of
scientific research, my stubbornness, my attitude, without some specifics.

Bring it on. Do you have something about the theory itself to tell me? I
already know that it differs from common practice, especially with recording
engineers. That's why I am telling about it. I am not the only one on this
side of the divide. It is the most important subject in audio right now.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"S. King" > wrote in message
...

> Which means that technical terms like "garbage", and "lame", and "Great
> googly moogly" become even more important to assure the clarity of
> opposing arguments. So there.
>
> SteveK

Put me down as a "Like" on that one!

Gary
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>I can understand the disagreement with my ideas, but why are some
>>responders
>>so vile in their contempt for a new idea? Why wouldn't everyone here be as
>>interested in this subject as I am? If you have some counterpoints, just
>>give them to me, but some of the comments go beyond the usual mockery that
>>a
>>new idea has to go through.
>
> Because you haven't actually described any new ideas, you have just done a
> lot
> of handwaving and not actually explained any actual theory. On top of
> that
> you have been basically dismissed away a century of fundamental research
> as
> being useless.
>
> And partly because you seem to be trying to solve a problem that nobody
> else
> in the world recognizes as a problem.
> --scott

Scott, my new idea is that the reproduction problem should be looked at as a
model of the live sound, which directs our attention to the sound fields
created in the listening room, which have traditionally been very different
from live sound fields. This in turn causes us to look at loudspeaker design
from a very different perspective, as image model projectors rather than
direct radiators. If this is no different from what you are doing, then
please tell me all about it.

As for your century of fundamental research, yes there has been great
interest in the subject - that is why I am here. I think I have something
important to contribute. But as for there being some ironclad, agreed to
stereo theory, I must disagree. That is one of my main points, that there is
no stereo theory to hang our hats on. I ran through all this in my paper,
and I think somewhere in this thread, about the Blumlein microscopic theory
at the listener's head, the Bell Labs curtain of sound, the various binaural
systems, and the Wave Field Synthesis, in which there is a curious reference
to the "mirror image model" approach.

In any case, two very different approaches would be the portal into another
acoustic space, the theory of the dominance of the direct sound from the
speakers, and the image model approach, wherein we use omnidirectional
speakers to reconstruct certain sound fields within our rooms.

Not handwaving,
Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary, I've told you what you need to do to continue your research. But you
don't seem to want to do it.

I recently learned of "black knight syndrome". You might want to look it up.

[Luxey]

уторак, 08. април 2014. 02.05.26 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
> Gary, I've told you what you need to do to continue your research. But you
>
> don't seem to want to do it.
>
>
>
> I recently learned of "black knight syndrome". You might want to look it up.

If it has anything to do with Monty Python (And The Holly Grail), he surelly should.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 4/5/2014 1:59 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Tom McCreadie" > wrote
>> < ...gigantic snip... >
>> Tom McCreadie
>
> Work with me here people. It's not all that hard.
>
> I covered both of those questions right in the post. If you need to read it
> again, please do. I have found that the communication of a new idea is
> complicated by the reader's putting his own thoughts between the lines and
> not reading what the author is actually saying.
>
OK, so I went back to your first post in this thread.

In doing so, I question your initial statement:
~~
"There is stereophonic and there is binaural. Two completely different and
incompatible systems, based on different theories. "
~~
As far as I know the overlying theory is that of psychoacoustics.
Stereophonic
and binaural are two different technological implementations of ways to
reproduce
a psychoacoustic experience. These implementations employ different
recording
and reproduction methodologies.

I'll stop here for now.

>
> < ...snip... >
>
> Gary
>>
>> Tinnitus is a pain in the neck
>>
>

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[PStamler]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:28:14 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> You then should decide whether it is an important discovery, imiportant
> enough to tell the world and go through the grief that trying to change
> previous mindsets will cause. I think this one is, or I wouldn't be so
> obsessed by it. Why? Because it is a whole new way of looking at a problem
> that has vexed an entire industry for - well, ever since stereo was
> invented.

[snip]

> I have answered all of the questions, explained beyond most
> questions, trying to help them gain some of my insight that I have attained
> in this long term study. I have never found any info or data that
> contradicts any part of it; on the contrary.

[snip]

> I haven't received any questions that I haven't thought about a
> hundred times already and answered for myself. It is very difficult to argue
> with the vague statements about my incompetence, my lack of understanding of
> scientific research, my stubbornness, my attitude, without some specifics.

>
> Bring it on. Do you have something about the theory itself to tell me? I
> already know that it differs from common practice, especially with recording
> engineers. That's why I am telling about it. I am not the only one on this
> side of the divide. It is the most important subject in audio right now.

I commend to Gary and everyone else in this thread the first chapter of Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". In the light of that chapter, the statements above look all too familiar.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> Gary, I've told you what you need to do to continue your research. But you
> don't seem to want to do it.

And I have told you I am doing it. This is not rocket science William. I'm
going straight ahead with it.

Gary

[hank alrich]

S. King > wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:44:06 +0000, Jeff Henig wrote:
>
> > "S. King" > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:23:13 -0700, Luxey wrote:
> >>
> >>> ?????????, 07. ????? 2014. 06.18.09 UTC+2, hank alrich ?? ???????/??:
> >>>> S. King > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> "Luxey" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Words, words, ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he consider
> >>>>>>> to be
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can not
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> theory from wishfull thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not
> >>>>>>> true.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get
> >>>>>>> through.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It will
> >>>>>> come.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Gary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread,
> >>>>> "Great
> >>>>
> >>>>> googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate, but
> >>>>> it
> >>>>
> >>>>> sure didn't hurt it either.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> SteveK
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first
> >>>> language.
> >>>> I
> >>>>
> >>>> conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in
> >>>> Luxey's
> >>>>
> >>>> language.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> >>>>
> >>>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> >>>>
> >>>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
> >>>
> >>> Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such comments.
> >>> My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just enough sense to be
> >>> on the par with Gary's theories. I could have said it properly, but
> >>> the meaning would be lost.
> >>
> >> And, just to be clear, my quote of Mike River's "Great googly-moogly"
> >> have nothing to do with anything posted by anyone and everything to do
> >> with the pure pleasure of speaking a bit of inoffensive nonsense, while
> >> others are trying so hard to be serious.
> >>
> >> SteveK
> >
> > C'mon, mang. Dis is serious bidness.
>
> Which means that technical terms like "garbage", and "lame", and "Great
> googly moogly" become even more important to assure the clarity of
> opposing arguments. So there.
>
> SteveK

I'm widja. English is my first language and I'm still trying to get used
to it. Have you noticed that codec, backwards, is cedoc? I wonder what
it means?

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> Gary, I've told you what you need to do to continue your research.
>> But you don't seem to want to do it.

> And I have told you I am doing it. This is not rocket science William.
> I'm going straight ahead with it.

You're not doing what I told you to do -- make live recordings with the people
who will listen to your speakers present at the recording.

"It's rocket science to me", because your work seems based on arcane
principles.

I've been listening to surround sound (of some sort, starting with Dynaquad)
for 44 years. Since ~1985, I've had high-quality SQ decoding, then the JVC
hall synthesizer, then multi-ch SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks. I even have
quad open-reel tapes (though playing them is kluzty.) I've gotten to listen
with speakers of /my/ choice, without having to wait for someone who's wasted
30 years of their life coming up with their own design.

The Black Knight needs to "get real".

[William Sommerwerck]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

> I commend to Gary and everyone else in this thread the first
> chapter of Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name
> of Science". In the light of that chapter, the statements above
> look all too familiar.

Amen.

The worst part of it is that what Gary is doing has /some/ validity. The
problem is that it's about the most-expensive and least-flexible way of doing
it.

Gary also ignores the fact that many system controllers have Dolby Surround
modes optimized for ambience extraction. WHY would anyone throw out their
existing speakers to buy Gary's?

PS: I forgot to mention that I have the Cantares Ambisonic decoder.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:28:14 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> You then should decide whether it is an important discovery, imiportant
>> enough to tell the world and go through the grief that trying to change
>> previous mindsets will cause. I think this one is, or I wouldn't be so
>> obsessed by it. Why? Because it is a whole new way of looking at a
>> problem
>> that has vexed an entire industry for - well, ever since stereo was
>> invented.
>
> [snip]
>
>> I have answered all of the questions, explained beyond most
>> questions, trying to help them gain some of my insight that I have
>> attained
>> in this long term study. I have never found any info or data that
>> contradicts any part of it; on the contrary.
>
> [snip]
>
>> I haven't received any questions that I haven't thought about a
>> hundred times already and answered for myself. It is very difficult to
>> argue
>> with the vague statements about my incompetence, my lack of understanding
>> of
>> scientific research, my stubbornness, my attitude, without some
>> specifics.
>
>>
>> Bring it on. Do you have something about the theory itself to tell me? I
>> already know that it differs from common practice, especially with
>> recording
>> engineers. That's why I am telling about it. I am not the only one on
>> this
>> side of the divide. It is the most important subject in audio right now.
>
> I commend to Gary and everyone else in this thread the first chapter of
> Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". In the light
> of that chapter, the statements above look all too familiar.

I have read it Paul, and I disagree that it applies to me. For one thing, I
do not go against the body of accumulated knowledge on the subject, I build
on those references that I have given so many times. What I am doing and
saying is a synthesis of those findings, such as the Bose and Davis
approaches to speaker design. Nor am I the only one on this side of the
argument, as I have stated. It all began with the Beolab 5 speaker, which
was designed by a recognized professional David Moulton, and has been
praised by many critics. The same goes for all other multi-directional
speakers such as MBL, Ohm, DBX, even Magneplanar and B&O.

Number two, I have presented to the AES, written in the BAS Speaker and
other enthusiast journals many times, and there is a body of others who
agree with me.

Number three, I am not just bull****ting or tilting at windmills, I am doing
the experiments with building speakers and testing against others, as in the
Linkwitz Challenge blind test experiment.

SO - now, again, if you have something to say about the subject, bring it
on. But if you are just piling on to the naysayers to appear clever without
having anything in particular to say in argument on the subject, then go
back through this whole thread again and reconsider. I can't argue against
generalities like this.

In fact, I don't really need to convince anyone who is not that interested
in the subject. I am just answering questions form the group. If you have
nothing more, let's just drop it and move on.

For those who ARE interested in the subject, I may be able to debut my
latest design at the InDIYana event in Ft. Wayne on May 30th and 31st. My
engineer friend who is building it will have mine and one of his up there
and I hope to make it.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Gary, I've told you what you need to do to continue your research.
>>> But you don't seem to want to do it.
>
>> And I have told you I am doing it. This is not rocket science William.
>> I'm going straight ahead with it.
>
> You're not doing what I told you to do -- make live recordings with the
> people who will listen to your speakers present at the recording.

Everyone here knows that I am studying snd doing recordings. They are
enthusiastically received by the band members.

> "It's rocket science to me", because your work seems based on arcane
> principles.

Recording live music and playing it back on my system? That pretty much sums
it up for me - don't know about you, but that is the process as I understand
it.
>
> I've been listening to surround sound (of some sort, starting with
> Dynaquad) for 44 years. Since ~1985, I've had high-quality SQ decoding,
> then the JVC hall synthesizer, then multi-ch SACDs and Blu-ray Audio
> disks. I even have quad open-reel tapes (though playing them is kluzty.)
> I've gotten to listen with speakers of /my/ choice, without having to wait
> for someone who's wasted 30 years of their life coming up with their own
> design.

As I have said, your practice in listening largely agrees with mine and what
I have been advocating. I applaud your surround sound listening, your
Ambisonics enthusiasm, your use of hall sythesizers and extra speakers to
mimic the spatial qualities contained in the recordings.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "PStamler" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I commend to Gary and everyone else in this thread the first
>> chapter of Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name
>> of Science". In the light of that chapter, the statements above
>> look all too familiar.
>
> Amen.
>
> The worst part of it is that what Gary is doing has /some/ validity. The
> problem is that it's about the most-expensive and least-flexible way of
> doing it.
>
> Gary also ignores the fact that many system controllers have Dolby
> Surround modes optimized for ambience extraction. WHY would anyone throw
> out their existing speakers to buy Gary's?

The frontal sound imaging is a separate subject from the use of surround
sound. Basically, we need to reproduce the instruments and the soundstage
behind and around them up front, and we also need to reproduce, or
reconstruct, the full reverberant field with the use of surround sound.

Soundstage up front with front speakers for the direct and early reflected
fields

Surround speakers for filling out the full reverberant field.

Field type system

Built in your room w reference to live sound fields

Do I hear an amen?

Yayesss

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 08/04/2014 14:43, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> Do I hear an amen?
>
As a passive observer of this thread, only if you STFU until you have
audible proof accepted by unbiased sources that your concept is better
than the current theory and practice.

The only way to get *fully accurate* reproduction of a concert
soundfield for a listener is to use a dummy head microphone system with
an absolutely flat and phase accurate response, and headphones equalised
and phase aligned to take account of the individual listener's ear canal
response. And make sure that the listener can't move their head during
playback, so that they don't subconciously allow for that movement by
their internal sound processing algorithms.

Any other system will alter the soundfield experienced by the listener,
so forbids accurate reproduction of the concert experience. The art in
recording sound is to deceive the listener into thinking that what they
are hearing is a pleasant, and as accurate as possible, version of what
was originally heard in the concert hall or studio. Or, in the case of
multi track recordings made using close mic'ing and electronic
instruments, a pleasant imitation of a sound stage spread in front of
the listener, on a wide variety of reproduction platforms.

This is not something that can be changed, as it depends on the laws of
physics, and the perception mechanisms built in to the human brain.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 08/04/2014 14:43, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >
> > Do I hear an amen?
> >
> As a passive observer of this thread, only if you STFU until you have
> audible proof accepted by unbiased sources that your concept is better
> than the current theory and practice.
>
> The only way to get *fully accurate* reproduction of a concert
> soundfield for a listener is to use a dummy head microphone system with
> an absolutely flat and phase accurate response, and headphones equalised
> and phase aligned to take account of the individual listener's ear canal
> response. And make sure that the listener can't move their head during
> playback, so that they don't subconciously allow for that movement by
> their internal sound processing algorithms.
>
> Any other system will alter the soundfield experienced by the listener,
> so forbids accurate reproduction of the concert experience. The art in
> recording sound is to deceive the listener into thinking that what they
> are hearing is a pleasant, and as accurate as possible, version of what
> was originally heard in the concert hall or studio. Or, in the case of
> multi track recordings made using close mic'ing and electronic
> instruments, a pleasant imitation of a sound stage spread in front of
> the listener, on a wide variety of reproduction platforms.
>
> This is not something that can be changed, as it depends on the laws of
> physics, and the perception mechanisms built in to the human brain.

Now, there's a post deserving of "AMEN!" Thanks, John.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Everyone here knows that I am studying snd doing recordings. They are
> enthusiastically received by the band members.

Everyone here excepting you sees that you are a rank amateur at live
recording with little knowledge yet of successful practices.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> I have read it Paul, and I disagree that it applies to me.

I see you as a vacuous egotist, hellbent on thinking a ladder makes you
taller.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[S. King]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:53:26 -0500, hank alrich wrote:

> S. King > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:44:06 +0000, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>
>> > "S. King" > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:23:13 -0700, Luxey wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ?????????, 07. ????? 2014. 06.18.09 UTC+2, hank alrich ??
>> >>> ???????/??:
>> >>>> S. King > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:06:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> "Luxey" > wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Words, words, ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Each time he fall to pieces Gary goes to read something he does
>> >>>>>>> not
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> understand and come back with fresh quantity of crap, he
>> >>>>>>> consider to be
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> knoweledge, to spill out in/ on to public.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> just like he can not differentiate crap from knoweedge, he can
>> >>>>>>> not
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> theory from wishfull thinking.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> When asked to explain, he claims he already did. Of course, not
>> >>>>>>> true.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> If he was, would not be asked to do so.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> So, hopefully, the meaning of "once already" will finaly get
>> >>>>>>> through.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> Awell as of proverbial buzz.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> I know all those words are hard Lux, but just keep at it. It
>> >>>>>> will come.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> Gary
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I'd like to quote Mike Rivers from a completely different thread,
>> >>>>> "Great
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> googly moogly!". There. I suppose that didn't help this debate,
>> >>>>> but it
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> sure didn't hurt it either.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> SteveK
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Those of here long enough realize English isnt Luxey's first
>> >>>> language.
>> >>>> I
>> >>>>
>> >>>> conjecture singificant amusement would arise should Gary post in
>> >>>> Luxey's
>> >>>>
>> >>>> language.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you Hank, but don't bother. I'm not bothered by such
>> >>> comments. My choice of words, quite itentional one, have just
>> >>> enough sense to be on the par with Gary's theories. I could have
>> >>> said it properly, but the meaning would be lost.
>> >>
>> >> And, just to be clear, my quote of Mike River's "Great
>> >> googly-moogly" have nothing to do with anything posted by anyone and
>> >> everything to do with the pure pleasure of speaking a bit of
>> >> inoffensive nonsense, while others are trying so hard to be serious.
>> >>
>> >> SteveK
>> >
>> > C'mon, mang. Dis is serious bidness.
>>
>> Which means that technical terms like "garbage", and "lame", and "Great
>> googly moogly" become even more important to assure the clarity of
>> opposing arguments. So there.
>>
>> SteveK
>
> I'm widja. English is my first language and I'm still trying to get used
> to it. Have you noticed that codec, backwards, is cedoc? I wonder what
> it means?

I think it was one of those code words in the Sgt. Pepper album to
describe an herb from central India with magical properties.

SteveK

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 08/04/2014 14:43, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> Do I hear an amen?
>>
> As a passive observer of this thread, only if you STFU until you have
> audible proof accepted by unbiased sources that your concept is better
> than the current theory and practice.
>
> The only way to get *fully accurate* reproduction of a concert soundfield
> for a listener is to use a dummy head microphone system with an absolutely
> flat and phase accurate response, and headphones equalised and phase
> aligned to take account of the individual listener's ear canal response.
> And make sure that the listener can't move their head during playback, so
> that they don't subconciously allow for that movement by their internal
> sound processing algorithms.
>
> Any other system will alter the soundfield experienced by the listener, so
> forbids accurate reproduction of the concert experience. The art in
> recording sound is to deceive the listener into thinking that what they
> are hearing is a pleasant, and as accurate as possible, version of what
> was originally heard in the concert hall or studio. Or, in the case of
> multi track recordings made using close mic'ing and electronic
> instruments, a pleasant imitation of a sound stage spread in front of the
> listener, on a wide variety of reproduction platforms.
>
> This is not something that can be changed, as it depends on the laws of
> physics, and the perception mechanisms built in to the human brain.

John stereo is not a fully "accurate" duplication of any original sound
field. It is not wavefront duplication. It is not transporting us to the
original hall. You cannot make a smaller room sound like a larger one by
playing a recording of the larger one inside it. What we are doing is a
reconstruction, a model, a simulation, an approximation, a surrogate of the
original space using our room and building the recorded sounds within it.

The binaural system is a great attempt at duplicating the sensory experience
of being there, but it has its problems as well. Most think that the main
one is that the sound moves with your head turns, which causes the IHL. But
I have come to realize from talking to people like Floyd Toole that what
causes the IHL is that you have no real room to help externalize the sound.
He said that he was once in a demo of an Ambisonic recording with full
periphonics (left, right, front, rear, up & down) in an anechoic environment
and he had In Head Locatedness! That is very surprising in a system that
attempts to encode all incoming sounds, and in which you can move your head
around. But apparently without a real room to anchor the sounds in a real
space you get the same problem as with headphones on.

Anyway, that is binaural and we are talking about stereophonic, which
includes all surround sound systems. Within that system, some great realism
is possible, but it is not and cannot be an exact duplicate of any concert
hall experience. It will have most of the spatial nature of the original,
but the time between reflections of the real room will superimpose onto the
recorded room, making the model a little smaller than the real thing, but
still having the recorded temporal nature of the original, including the
reverberant tail of the concert hall. Final result is that it sounds like
they are present in your room, but your room takes on some of the
characteristics of the concert hall acoustics. Kind of like a photo
slideshow. The pictures are really lifelike, but they are also smaller than
the original scene. Realistic, but not a visual duplicate.

I mention all that to show that I am not saying that my system is some magic
sound field duplication, as I have been accused by some.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> I have read it Paul, and I disagree that it applies to me.
>
> I see you as a vacuous egotist, hellbent on thinking a ladder makes you
> taller.

I see you as an ankle biter.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >> I have read it Paul, and I disagree that it applies to me.
> >
> > I see you as a vacuous egotist, hellbent on thinking a ladder makes you
> > taller.
>
> I see you as an ankle biter.
>
> Gary

That would matter only if you are nothing but ankles. You have brought
_nothing_ but hot air to the table here. You remind me of a holiday
turkey bragging about the stuffing.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

Gary, the people in this group know a lot about sound recording and
reproduction. Some of us are AES members. I'm one. I was sponsored by Saul
Marantz and Jon Dahlquist.

That doesn't prove I know anything, of course, but I assure that I am always
open to new ideas -- if the person proposing them can justify them.

You haven't sufficiently justified your beliefs for us to give them any
credence.

As for Count Floyd... I wouldn't believe /anything/ he said. But if he's right
about Ambisonc recordings sounding "in head" in an anechoic chamber (which I
find /very/ hard to believe)... wouldn't it behoove you to find out /why/ this
so, so that you could apply that knowledge to a plausible theory as to why
room interaction is required for realistic reproduction? *

I emphatically contend that it is /not/ required -- that room interaction gets
in the way of accurate reproduction. I'm sure most of the people reading this
agree. If you can't convince us -- who are you going to convince?

* I've heard Ambisonic playback in extremely large rooms with a lot of
sound-absorbing material (carpeting, ceiling tiles), and the speakers
well-away from the walls. The sound was anything /but/ "in the head".

[John Williamson]

On 08/04/2014 20:32, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Gary, the people in this group know a lot about sound recording and
> reproduction. Some of us are AES members. I'm one. I was sponsored by
> Saul Marantz and Jon Dahlquist.
>
> That doesn't prove I know anything, of course, but I assure that I am
> always open to new ideas -- if the person proposing them can justify them.
>
> You haven't sufficiently justified your beliefs for us to give them any
> credence.
>
> As for Count Floyd... I wouldn't believe /anything/ he said. But if he's
> right about Ambisonc recordings sounding "in head" in an anechoic
> chamber (which I find /very/ hard to believe)... wouldn't it behoove you
> to find out /why/ this so, so that you could apply that knowledge to a
> plausible theory as to why room interaction is required for realistic
> reproduction? *
>
> I emphatically contend that it is /not/ required -- that room
> interaction gets in the way of accurate reproduction. I'm sure most of
> the people reading this agree. If you can't convince us -- who are you
> going to convince?
>
> * I've heard Ambisonic playback in extremely large rooms with a lot of
> sound-absorbing material (carpeting, ceiling tiles), and the speakers
> well-away from the walls. The sound was anything /but/ "in the head".

At the other extreme, I've had an "in the head" experience with a pair
of PA speakers in a marquee when I was doing one live gig. The speaker
separation was about 30 feet, and I was at the point of an equilateral
triangle. The sweet spot was only a foot or so across, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...

> At the other extreme, I've had an "in the head" experience with a pair of
> PA speakers in a marquee when I was doing one live gig. The speaker
> separation was about 30 feet, and I was at the point of an equilateral
> triangle. The sweet spot was only a foot or so across, though.
>

Right - you were in such a high direct field that it was like having
headphones on. I had a similar experience with a pair of Acoustats. They
are - or were - planar electrostats that were so directional they sounded
like they were going to suck my ears off. I couldn't wait to get out of
there.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...


> That would matter only if you are nothing but ankles. You have brought
> _nothing_ but hot air to the table here. You remind me of a holiday
> turkey bragging about the stuffing.

That's it. You are not passing this course. See me after class.

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 09/04/2014 05:44, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> At the other extreme, I've had an "in the head" experience with a pair of
>> PA speakers in a marquee when I was doing one live gig. The speaker
>> separation was about 30 feet, and I was at the point of an equilateral
>> triangle. The sweet spot was only a foot or so across, though.
>>
>
> Right - you were in such a high direct field that it was like having
> headphones on. I had a similar experience with a pair of Acoustats. They
> are - or were - planar electrostats that were so directional they sounded
> like they were going to suck my ears off. I couldn't wait to get out of
> there.
>
The volume was set for normal background listening at a company open
day, so well below 80dB. There was no discomfort, just the feeling that
the sound was inside my head, just as if I was wearing headphones.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.