Tweet
Re: Vinyl Theories and other interesting diversion
> Hey Jeff,
> How goes? What a huge topic. I could go on
> for hours, but I only have minutes available
> so….
> Hate to be the party pooper but (you knew
> this was coming, given I’m a PITA some times
> J ):
> While not diminishing the importance of the
> spectral balance of early reflection, or of
> getting the right balance between early and
> late, unfortunately this theory isn't really
> true. The relative size is dependant more
> upon the IACC, Inter-Aural Cross
> Correlation. Check out Greisenger's web
> site, or google envelopment (eg
> <A HREF="http://www.concerthalls.unomaha.edu/...n/spacious.htm">http://www.concerthalls.unomaha.edu/...n/spacious.htm</A>
> ).
> For example, you could generate massive
> images in an anechoic chamber, using Sonic
> Hallography type approaches from 2 channels.
> FWIW, a neat experiment: wire one tweeter
> (say, left) out of phase with the other
> (say, right). The image gets massive. Height
> reaching to the skys etc.
> A few of my own thoughts on why analog
> images better than CD:
> - lower SNR: the noise helps us perceive the
> low level info (before I get harassed about
> this by anyone, look it up)
> - lower cross talk. This I think is
> "The Kicker". By definition,
> stereo itself is horribly flawed by the
> crosstalk from right speaker to left ear and
> left speaker to right ear. It is my theory
> that LP's notoriously poorer crosstalk than
> digital actually aids in retrieval spatial
> info by: creating more, by its own inherent
> crosstalk; through the actual lack of IACC
> in the crosstalk, which adds spaciousness.
> I’ve never seen this theory floated before,
> but its been banging around in my head for
> years and I think it has real technical
> merit to it.
> The fractal analogy is interesting when
> describing masking, but its an analogy only.
> Making is masking, there’s no inherent level
> resolution limit to digital that means it
> struggles more with masking. You could argue
> that digital has higher resolution, based on
> its much superior SNR (especially with
> chaotic dither: see Shannon theory).
> Why the Rega was flatter than the Linn, I
> dunno, but I know exactly what you mean.
> FWIW, the most outrageous (good) depth I
> ever heard from point sources was the
> ancient Rega 2+Grace arm +Grado cartridge
> over the JR149s (now you know why I’ve
> slaved over those B110 bitches for so long).
> Boy do I ever agree about stiff cabinets
> being better. I've irrevocably proven that
> to myself through experimentation and
> measurement. A dead cabinet sounds far more
> real, less fatiguing, there’s no comparison.
> Good lessons there.
> I also think the “smaller images better”
> gets back to that old power response though;
> A big speaker will just struggle in that
> area more. “Flat power response” is a
> misleading target. You want not just the sum
> of all reflected powers to hit a certain
> smooth target, but individual reflections
> need to look “right”, spectrally. This is
> where small is beautiful and large is the
> 1000lb gorilla in the room. Small is closer
> to point source and can give smoother
> individual reflections.
> I found the exact same thing as you did
> Jeff, that single drivers (or itsy bitsy
> cabinets) image like gang-busters. My
> theory: see the preceding paragraph.
> BTW, Sonic Hollography cooked up some
> amazing effects didn’t it? My TV had it and
> it could place images in the neighbours yard
> next door. I kid you not: the virtual image
> would walk from the yard, through my wall,
> through the speakers, back out the other
> side and into the other neighbours wall.
> Just like it was supposed to on the TV. What
> a rush!
> BTW2: I tried but never had the same success
> with low group delay systems. Never noted a
> great imaging improvement. Could be my set
> up limiting it. I prefer low order xovers
> because they tend to stress the tweeter less
> (as long as it goes to high order out of
> band).
> Wish I could go on (and on), imaging was a
> pet professional topic of mine for a long
> time, but duty calls.
> PS To Ron E, you know this, depth is created
> by a back wall reflection, mainly. Simple
> mirror ray math. Not to knock your points
> though, I really appreciate you as a voice
> of reason. The ability to hit the back wall
> with the right signal (dipoles anyone?),
> without clouding the picture with
> diffraction etc, is key.
Hi Dave. Glad to hear from you. I can't really debate anything you have said, and for the most part I think a pretty much agree with you. As I have stated already, a lot of my essay was speculation based mostly on my observations. However, I recognize that your professional experience would give you considerably more knowledge in some of these areas than I have. What you said about analog's better signal to noise ratio is interesting - I did not know that. And your commnent about the difference in crosstalk is interestng because I am certain minimizing crosstalk plays a huge roll in this (which is what Carver was doing, and my Sharp TV does this too. I have really been fooled by it at times Ha Ha!). Yes, my use of the "fractal nature" was mostly an analogy, which I have already stated a couple of times here. It was mainly used to express the diffences in the sound floor between digital and analog. Finally, just as it did originally my article incited ( is that the right word?) a lot of discussion ;- )
Cheers,
Jeff B.
> Hey Jeff,
> How goes? What a huge topic. I could go on
> for hours, but I only have minutes available
> so….
> Hate to be the party pooper but (you knew
> this was coming, given I’m a PITA some times
> J ):
> While not diminishing the importance of the
> spectral balance of early reflection, or of
> getting the right balance between early and
> late, unfortunately this theory isn't really
> true. The relative size is dependant more
> upon the IACC, Inter-Aural Cross
> Correlation. Check out Greisenger's web
> site, or google envelopment (eg
> <A HREF="http://www.concerthalls.unomaha.edu/...n/spacious.htm">http://www.concerthalls.unomaha.edu/...n/spacious.htm</A>
> ).
> For example, you could generate massive
> images in an anechoic chamber, using Sonic
> Hallography type approaches from 2 channels.
> FWIW, a neat experiment: wire one tweeter
> (say, left) out of phase with the other
> (say, right). The image gets massive. Height
> reaching to the skys etc.
> A few of my own thoughts on why analog
> images better than CD:
> - lower SNR: the noise helps us perceive the
> low level info (before I get harassed about
> this by anyone, look it up)
> - lower cross talk. This I think is
> "The Kicker". By definition,
> stereo itself is horribly flawed by the
> crosstalk from right speaker to left ear and
> left speaker to right ear. It is my theory
> that LP's notoriously poorer crosstalk than
> digital actually aids in retrieval spatial
> info by: creating more, by its own inherent
> crosstalk; through the actual lack of IACC
> in the crosstalk, which adds spaciousness.
> I’ve never seen this theory floated before,
> but its been banging around in my head for
> years and I think it has real technical
> merit to it.
> The fractal analogy is interesting when
> describing masking, but its an analogy only.
> Making is masking, there’s no inherent level
> resolution limit to digital that means it
> struggles more with masking. You could argue
> that digital has higher resolution, based on
> its much superior SNR (especially with
> chaotic dither: see Shannon theory).
> Why the Rega was flatter than the Linn, I
> dunno, but I know exactly what you mean.
> FWIW, the most outrageous (good) depth I
> ever heard from point sources was the
> ancient Rega 2+Grace arm +Grado cartridge
> over the JR149s (now you know why I’ve
> slaved over those B110 bitches for so long).
> Boy do I ever agree about stiff cabinets
> being better. I've irrevocably proven that
> to myself through experimentation and
> measurement. A dead cabinet sounds far more
> real, less fatiguing, there’s no comparison.
> Good lessons there.
> I also think the “smaller images better”
> gets back to that old power response though;
> A big speaker will just struggle in that
> area more. “Flat power response” is a
> misleading target. You want not just the sum
> of all reflected powers to hit a certain
> smooth target, but individual reflections
> need to look “right”, spectrally. This is
> where small is beautiful and large is the
> 1000lb gorilla in the room. Small is closer
> to point source and can give smoother
> individual reflections.
> I found the exact same thing as you did
> Jeff, that single drivers (or itsy bitsy
> cabinets) image like gang-busters. My
> theory: see the preceding paragraph.
> BTW, Sonic Hollography cooked up some
> amazing effects didn’t it? My TV had it and
> it could place images in the neighbours yard
> next door. I kid you not: the virtual image
> would walk from the yard, through my wall,
> through the speakers, back out the other
> side and into the other neighbours wall.
> Just like it was supposed to on the TV. What
> a rush!
> BTW2: I tried but never had the same success
> with low group delay systems. Never noted a
> great imaging improvement. Could be my set
> up limiting it. I prefer low order xovers
> because they tend to stress the tweeter less
> (as long as it goes to high order out of
> band).
> Wish I could go on (and on), imaging was a
> pet professional topic of mine for a long
> time, but duty calls.
> PS To Ron E, you know this, depth is created
> by a back wall reflection, mainly. Simple
> mirror ray math. Not to knock your points
> though, I really appreciate you as a voice
> of reason. The ability to hit the back wall
> with the right signal (dipoles anyone?),
> without clouding the picture with
> diffraction etc, is key.
Hi Dave. Glad to hear from you. I can't really debate anything you have said, and for the most part I think a pretty much agree with you. As I have stated already, a lot of my essay was speculation based mostly on my observations. However, I recognize that your professional experience would give you considerably more knowledge in some of these areas than I have. What you said about analog's better signal to noise ratio is interesting - I did not know that. And your commnent about the difference in crosstalk is interestng because I am certain minimizing crosstalk plays a huge roll in this (which is what Carver was doing, and my Sharp TV does this too. I have really been fooled by it at times Ha Ha!). Yes, my use of the "fractal nature" was mostly an analogy, which I have already stated a couple of times here. It was mainly used to express the diffences in the sound floor between digital and analog. Finally, just as it did originally my article incited ( is that the right word?) a lot of discussion ;- )
Cheers,
Jeff B.
Comment