[Gary Eickmeier]

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

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

Your opinion, I obviously don't share.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes - that is correct sir!


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

Gary Eickmeier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TALK to me. From my paper:

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

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

Gary Eickmeier