Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

After breakfast continued

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable. This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest of the situation, namely how
    Message 1 of 13 , May 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
      This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
      of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
      of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
      up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
      was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
      the effort ate almost all the rest.

      So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
      can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation pattern should be used. etc.

      Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
      Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
      any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
      alike. You can't do it!
      Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite) but the sound remains stubbornly different.

      But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
      probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
      to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
      the adjustable thing it is and review something else.

      Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
      who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
      to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
      with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
      out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about! not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..

      Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
      (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)

      REG
    • Uli Brueggemann
      A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies. But it does not contain ANY time information. So it is possible to generate an unlimited
      Message 2 of 13 , May 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
        But it does not contain ANY time information.
        So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert knows this of course very well.

        But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are also sensible for time.
        This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency response only.

        Uli


        On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@...> wrote:
         

        Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
        This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
        of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
        of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
        up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
        was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
        the effort ate almost all the rest.

        So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
        can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation pattern should be used. etc.

        Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
        Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
        any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
        alike. You can't do it!
        Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite) but the sound remains stubbornly different.

        But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
        probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
        to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
        the adjustable thing it is and review something else.

        Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
        who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
        to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
        with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
        out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about! not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..

        Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
        (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)

        REG


      • jeff
        The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use
        Message 3 of 13 , May 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?

          jeff

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@...> wrote:
          >
          > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
          > But it does not contain ANY time information.
          > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
          > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
          > knows this of course very well.
          >
          > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
          > also sensible for time.
          > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
          > response only.
          >
          > Uli
          >
          >
          > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@...> wrote:
          >
          > > **
          > >
          > >
          > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
          > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
          > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
          > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
          > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
          > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
          > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
          > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
          > >
          > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
          > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
          > > pattern should be used. etc.
          > >
          > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
          > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
          > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
          > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
          > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
          > > alike. You can't do it!
          > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
          > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
          > >
          > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
          > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
          > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
          > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
          > >
          > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
          > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
          > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
          > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
          > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
          > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
          > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
          > >
          > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
          > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
          > >
          > > REG
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Robert
          But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms of correcting the speaker itself. In
          Message 4 of 13 , May 27, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the
            higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms
            of correcting the speaker itself. In room correction
            of phase in the higher frequencies is silly even to try.

            This is mathematical maneuvering gone out of control.
            The very name Dirac makes on cringe. assuming that Dirac
            refers to the so called Dirac delta fucntion and trying to get
            that in reality.
            Filter inversion in the higher frequencies is a
            VERY BAD thing to do. It does not make any
            sense at all. It can be done for a single point
            but it will sound wrong--
            except in a system which has almost all direct sound
            (in which case it is not needed to do phase manipulation
            except for the speakers themselves to get them to be
            phase linear).

            This is not about getting the pictures to look nice of the
            impulse response. It is about what one hears. And what
            one hears is not addressed by doing a one point measurement
            and inverting that as a "filter". Not even close.

            One has to spatially average. But in the spatial average
            phase information is lost(in the high frequencies).

            What this appears to be--I am not familiar with the device as such--
            is DSP engineering gone bonkers with no idea at all
            of how people actually hear sound in rooms.

            Power fron DSP to do good is also power to do things wrong.
            Forget filter inversion--wrong thing to do(except
            in cases of verified spatial stability in the lower frequencies,
            where it almost makes sense anyway).

            I am almost beginning to regret that I ever told people
            that DSP was a good idea years ago. It seems to have
            gone off the rails almost entirely. By now, the only
            thing at all trustworthy to my mind is
            1 fixing speakers(good tool for that)
            2 fixing bass

            Above the bass, better concentrate on adjusting for yourself.
            And forget phase manipulation--unless you can verify that
            what you are correcting is stable in space.

            Every engineering idea seems to have some sort of oversimplified
            nonsense attached to it, like making THD hundreds of times below threshold. In the DSP world, the analogue has become one point
            filter inversion.

            Forget it. The Grand Illusion awaits. At least it was grand.
            Filter inversion in s simplistic form is an illusion all
            right but there is nothing grand about it.


            REG

            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@...> wrote:
            >
            > The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?
            >
            > jeff
            >
            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
            > >
            > > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
            > > But it does not contain ANY time information.
            > > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
            > > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
            > > knows this of course very well.
            > >
            > > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
            > > also sensible for time.
            > > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
            > > response only.
            > >
            > > Uli
            > >
            > >
            > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
            > >
            > > > **
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
            > > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
            > > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
            > > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
            > > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
            > > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
            > > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
            > > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
            > > >
            > > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
            > > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
            > > > pattern should be used. etc.
            > > >
            > > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
            > > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
            > > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
            > > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
            > > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
            > > > alike. You can't do it!
            > > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
            > > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
            > > >
            > > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
            > > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
            > > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
            > > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
            > > >
            > > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
            > > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
            > > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
            > > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
            > > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
            > > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
            > > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
            > > >
            > > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
            > > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
            > > >
            > > > REG
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • ymm
            sensitive to time information ? Is that detectable in an ABX test by Acourate users? Yip ... sensitive to time information ? Is that detectable in an ABX
            Message 5 of 13 , May 27, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              "sensitive to time information"?

              Is that detectable in an ABX test by Acourate users?

              Yip


              From: Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@...>
              To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, 28 May 2012, 2:00
              Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] After breakfast continued

               
              A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
              But it does not contain ANY time information.
              So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert knows this of course very well.

              But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are also sensible for time.
              This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency response only.

              Uli


              On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@...> wrote:
               
              Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
              This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
              of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
              of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
              up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
              was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
              the effort ate almost all the rest.

              So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
              can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation pattern should be used. etc.

              Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
              Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
              any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
              alike. You can't do it!
              Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite) but the sound remains stubbornly different.

              But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
              probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
              to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
              the adjustable thing it is and review something else.

              Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
              who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
              to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
              with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
              out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about! not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..

              Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
              (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)

              REG




            • Robert
              Interchannel timing in sub 1kHz frequencies is definitely detectable. On the other hand, does anyone feel that mono signal(same to both channels) image focus
              Message 6 of 13 , May 27, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Interchannel timing in sub 1kHz frequencies
                is definitely detectable.
                On the other hand, does anyone feel that
                mono signal(same to both channels) image focus
                is inadequate? In a symmetrically placved system
                where one is reasonably close to the speakers,
                absolutely not in my experience.
                And if mono focus is all but perfect, clearly phase differences
                between the channels are not doing much.

                Ironically, people are arguing out of both sides of their
                mouths here! Geddes is saying that focus is TOO MUCH
                when one is in the close up "in the recording" mode.
                Of course these are different people!

                But you can see how confused the field is. Some people
                want more inmage focus than close to the speakers listening
                gives by nature, others do not like the amount of focus
                one gets and feels it is too much.

                A little logic is good here. If the out of phase between
                the channels room effect amounted to much, one would
                hear a blurry image on say Sphiles
                "the sound of the [Fender] bass should appear to come
                from a precisely defined position midway between the two speakers"
                But in practice when any reasonble set up where you are
                reasonably close to the speakers, the sound of the bass(or
                mono voice) DOES appear to come from a precisely defined
                position midway between the two speakers. Focus is excellent.
                Could it be better? Almost anything could be better, I suppose.
                But does it need to be better?

                I would say that the answer to that is 100 % no, it does not.
                It is nailed down completely in my systems ALREADY. Of course
                there is perhaps something intriguing about pushing things as
                far as they will go. But at the cost of doing lots of signal processing on spatially unstable situations... not really
                worthwhile to my mind.

                Try it yourself. Doesn't mono sound nailed in the center?
                End of story, arguably, on out of phase effects between the two
                channels...how much better do you expect this to be? especially since recordings unless they are multimiked and panpotted are hardly
                ever that focused themselves. To each his own, but enough is sometimes enough...


                REG

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@...> wrote:
                >
                > "sensitive to time information"?
                >
                > Is that detectable in an ABX test by Acourate users?
                >
                > Yip
                >
                >
                >
                > >________________________________
                > > From: Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@...>
                > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                > >Sent: Monday, 28 May 2012, 2:00
                > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] After breakfast continued
                > >
                > >
                > > 
                > >A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                > >But it does not contain ANY time information.
                > >So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert knows this of course very well.
                > >
                > >But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are also sensible for time.
                > >This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency response only.
                > >
                > >Uli
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >> 
                > >>Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                > >>This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                > >>of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                > >>of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                > >>up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                > >>was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                > >>the effort ate almost all the rest.
                > >>
                > >>So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                > >>can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation pattern should be used. etc.
                > >>
                > >>Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                > >>Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                > >>any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                > >>alike. You can't do it!
                > >>Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite) but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                > >>
                > >>But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                > >>probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                > >>to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                > >>the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                > >>
                > >>Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                > >>who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                > >>to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                > >>with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                > >>out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about! not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                > >>
                > >>Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                > >>(no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                > >>
                > >>REG
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Robert
                This is of course literally true in the mathematical sense. But there is a lot of evidence that the time distortions that occur in audio at the playback end do
                Message 7 of 13 , May 27, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is of course literally true in the mathematical sense.
                  But there is a lot of evidence that the time distortions
                  that occur in audio at the playback end do not amount to much--
                  except in the sense that one could think of room sound
                  itself as a "time distortion" of the original signal,
                  it being time delayed.
                  But otherwise... look again at the Gradient experiment.
                  The phase nonlinearities of the speaker used(and it had some
                  being a higher order crossover design) was not really
                  a big deal. Audible, yes, with certain peculiar sounds.
                  But not really amounting to much.

                  Audio has always had trouble with priorities, with things
                  that are indeed audible but do not amoung to much. But the
                  crucial thing is in fat to decide what is important!
                  Interchannel timing is important--but easy to arrange satisfactorily.
                  Do you really hear a big blur in your audio around the center
                  when you play the same mono signal through both speakers?
                  Not me. This just does not happen. And the rest of the literal
                  time distortion is pretty much a non-starter. Except in as much
                  as one thinks of the room sound as such--but that is rather
                  misleading. It makes a lot more sense to think of it as it is,
                  sound coming along later. Especially since inthe higher frequencies
                  you are not going to be able to phase repair it except at one exact point. I know I wrote in one of the Sigtech articles about min phase
                  reflection phenomena(which they tend to be in the higher frequencies) can be cancelled out. And they can, too--at one point. But for
                  this to make real sense one has to verify spatial stability.

                  Ask yourself if your wife or husband or friend's voices change timbre and have indefinite location as they move around the room a bit. And if not--and no is the answer--why not? The phase
                  and frequency response behavior is changing wildly. But the ear/brain edits it out. It simply cancels perception of weird room effects. Except in the bass--a male friends voice will get bass-ier
                  if he gets really close to a corner. The brain is fighting to make sense of what it is receiving. And it does a good job. Some things just do not need correcting.

                  REG
                  --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                  > But it does not contain ANY time information.
                  > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
                  > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
                  > knows this of course very well.
                  >
                  > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
                  > also sensible for time.
                  > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
                  > response only.
                  >
                  > Uli
                  >
                  >
                  > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > **
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                  > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                  > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                  > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                  > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
                  > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                  > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                  > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
                  > >
                  > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                  > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
                  > > pattern should be used. etc.
                  > >
                  > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
                  > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
                  > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                  > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                  > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                  > > alike. You can't do it!
                  > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
                  > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                  > >
                  > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                  > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                  > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                  > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                  > >
                  > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                  > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                  > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                  > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                  > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
                  > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
                  > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                  > >
                  > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                  > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                  > >
                  > > REG
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • HM
                  Griesinger states that 2 woofers allow better spatial reproduction of the recording room. He must be a friend of ORTF or wider spaced mics then. I do like
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 27, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Griesinger states that 2 woofers allow better spatial reproduction of the recording room. He must be a friend of ORTF or wider spaced mics then.

                    I do like Blumlein recordings for their better clarity and I apply Shuffling for correcting HRTF issues. It improves clarity and focus and while I make treble basically narrower, the soundtsge appears more credible..

                    Most classical recordings come with inverted polarity, I reverse those and get better focus and clarity, the instruments of the front row come closer, there are no negative side effects.

                    A mono signal from both speakers reveals any speaker unbalance by some frequencies wandering to one speaker, others to the other side.
                    Moving the head away from the sweet spot does harm to the focus.
                    Same with wide spaced omnis. As long as we listen to various recordings with so individual mic setups we can never find one optimum universal listening solution (speaker setup).
                    I counted more than 40 ways of setting up microphones for stereo. I think every tone engineer is proud of having his own name connected with a specific arrangement.
                    BR HM



                    --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Interchannel timing in sub 1kHz frequencies
                    > is definitely detectable.
                    > On the other hand, does anyone feel that
                    > mono signal(same to both channels) image focus
                    > is inadequate? In a symmetrically placved system
                    > where one is reasonably close to the speakers,
                    > absolutely not in my experience.
                    > And if mono focus is all but perfect, clearly phase differences
                    > between the channels are not doing much.
                    >
                    > Ironically, people are arguing out of both sides of their
                    > mouths here! Geddes is saying that focus is TOO MUCH
                    > when one is in the close up "in the recording" mode.
                    > Of course these are different people!
                    >
                    > But you can see how confused the field is. Some people
                    > want more inmage focus than close to the speakers listening
                    > gives by nature, others do not like the amount of focus
                    > one gets and feels it is too much.
                    >
                    > A little logic is good here. If the out of phase between
                    > the channels room effect amounted to much, one would
                    > hear a blurry image on say Sphiles
                    > "the sound of the [Fender] bass should appear to come
                    > from a precisely defined position midway between the two speakers"
                    > But in practice when any reasonble set up where you are
                    > reasonably close to the speakers, the sound of the bass(or
                    > mono voice) DOES appear to come from a precisely defined
                    > position midway between the two speakers. Focus is excellent.
                    > Could it be better? Almost anything could be better, I suppose.
                    > But does it need to be better?
                    >
                    > I would say that the answer to that is 100 % no, it does not.
                    > It is nailed down completely in my systems ALREADY. Of course
                    > there is perhaps something intriguing about pushing things as
                    > far as they will go. But at the cost of doing lots of signal processing on spatially unstable situations... not really
                    > worthwhile to my mind.
                    >
                    > Try it yourself. Doesn't mono sound nailed in the center?
                    > End of story, arguably, on out of phase effects between the two
                    > channels...how much better do you expect this to be? especially since recordings unless they are multimiked and panpotted are hardly
                    > ever that focused themselves. To each his own, but enough is sometimes enough...
                    >
                    >
                    > REG
                    >
                    > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, ymm <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > "sensitive to time information"?
                    > >
                    > > Is that detectable in an ABX test by Acourate users?
                    > >
                    > > Yip
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > >________________________________
                    > > > From: Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@>
                    > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
                    > > >Sent: Monday, 28 May 2012, 2:00
                    > > >Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] After breakfast continued
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > 
                    > > >A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                    > > >But it does not contain ANY time information.
                    > > >So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert knows this of course very well.
                    > > >
                    > > >But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are also sensible for time.
                    > > >This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency response only.
                    > > >
                    > > >Uli
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >> 
                    > > >>Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                    > > >>This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                    > > >>of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                    > > >>of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                    > > >>up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                    > > >>was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                    > > >>the effort ate almost all the rest.
                    > > >>
                    > > >>So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                    > > >>can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation pattern should be used. etc.
                    > > >>
                    > > >>Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                    > > >>Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                    > > >>any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                    > > >>alike. You can't do it!
                    > > >>Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite) but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                    > > >>
                    > > >>But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                    > > >>probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                    > > >>to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                    > > >>the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                    > > >>
                    > > >>Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                    > > >>who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                    > > >>to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                    > > >>with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                    > > >>out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about! not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                    > > >>
                    > > >>Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                    > > >>(no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                    > > >>
                    > > >>REG
                    > > >>
                    > > >>
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • jeff
                    REG, You are not familiar with the device as such and don t like the name of the company, so I ll be brief. Dirac calls for measurements at 9 locations, so
                    Message 9 of 13 , May 27, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      REG,

                      You are "not familiar with the device as such" and don't like the name of the company, so I'll be brief. Dirac calls for measurements at 9 locations, so it seems pretty likely that its designers agree with you that "One has to spatially average." And the ability of the user to set the frequency limits on correction indicates additional potential for implementation of your prescriptions.

                      In any case, I am quite sorry I mentioned it. I certainly would not have done so had I known that you are "almost beginning to regret that [you] ever told people that DSP was a good idea."

                      Jeff


                      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the
                      > higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms
                      > of correcting the speaker itself. In room correction
                      > of phase in the higher frequencies is silly even to try.
                      >
                      > This is mathematical maneuvering gone out of control.
                      > The very name Dirac makes on cringe. assuming that Dirac
                      > refers to the so called Dirac delta fucntion and trying to get
                      > that in reality.
                      > Filter inversion in the higher frequencies is a
                      > VERY BAD thing to do. It does not make any
                      > sense at all. It can be done for a single point
                      > but it will sound wrong--
                      > except in a system which has almost all direct sound
                      > (in which case it is not needed to do phase manipulation
                      > except for the speakers themselves to get them to be
                      > phase linear).
                      >
                      > This is not about getting the pictures to look nice of the
                      > impulse response. It is about what one hears. And what
                      > one hears is not addressed by doing a one point measurement
                      > and inverting that as a "filter". Not even close.
                      >
                      > One has to spatially average. But in the spatial average
                      > phase information is lost(in the high frequencies).
                      >
                      > What this appears to be--I am not familiar with the device as such--
                      > is DSP engineering gone bonkers with no idea at all
                      > of how people actually hear sound in rooms.
                      >
                      > Power fron DSP to do good is also power to do things wrong.
                      > Forget filter inversion--wrong thing to do(except
                      > in cases of verified spatial stability in the lower frequencies,
                      > where it almost makes sense anyway).
                      >
                      > I am almost beginning to regret that I ever told people
                      > that DSP was a good idea years ago. It seems to have
                      > gone off the rails almost entirely. By now, the only
                      > thing at all trustworthy to my mind is
                      > 1 fixing speakers(good tool for that)
                      > 2 fixing bass
                      >
                      > Above the bass, better concentrate on adjusting for yourself.
                      > And forget phase manipulation--unless you can verify that
                      > what you are correcting is stable in space.
                      >
                      > Every engineering idea seems to have some sort of oversimplified
                      > nonsense attached to it, like making THD hundreds of times below threshold. In the DSP world, the analogue has become one point
                      > filter inversion.
                      >
                      > Forget it. The Grand Illusion awaits. At least it was grand.
                      > Filter inversion in s simplistic form is an illusion all
                      > right but there is nothing grand about it.
                      >
                      >
                      > REG
                      >
                      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?
                      > >
                      > > jeff
                      > >
                      > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                      > > > But it does not contain ANY time information.
                      > > > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
                      > > > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
                      > > > knows this of course very well.
                      > > >
                      > > > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
                      > > > also sensible for time.
                      > > > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
                      > > > response only.
                      > > >
                      > > > Uli
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > **
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                      > > > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                      > > > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                      > > > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                      > > > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
                      > > > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                      > > > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                      > > > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                      > > > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
                      > > > > pattern should be used. etc.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
                      > > > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
                      > > > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                      > > > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                      > > > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                      > > > > alike. You can't do it!
                      > > > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
                      > > > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                      > > > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                      > > > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                      > > > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                      > > > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                      > > > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                      > > > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                      > > > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
                      > > > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
                      > > > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                      > > > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > REG
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • Robert
                      The multi-location measurement (in Dirac)is interesting, but one wonders what they do with it, especially if they are claiming to adjust phase since what to do
                      Message 10 of 13 , May 28, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The multi-location measurement (in Dirac)is interesting,
                        but one wonders what they do with it, especially if
                        they are claiming to adjust phase since
                        what to do with multiple measurements is completely
                        unclear when phase is involved(not too clear for amplitude
                        either). Do they say what they do with it> Show you
                        the measurements?

                        One of the things that is alarming
                        to me about all the DSP development is that
                        one cannot find out what the devices do.
                        Sigtech actually would explain if asked--
                        they had extended white papers. But on the
                        whole it has been hard to find out.

                        I apologize if I over-reacted to the Dirac name.
                        But in fact I am beginning to feel that , while DSP
                        is surely part of the future of audio, it is
                        being promoted in very odd ways.

                        The whole idea to my mind
                        was to get things rationalized, to make sense
                        of a field which was close to nonsense in terms
                        of anythng but raw listening experience. Instead, it
                        is rapidly degenerating into hidden programming
                        schemes and what looks a lot like pseudo-science
                        in many cases.

                        This does not have to happen. But audio being
                        as it is, it is hard to get people to be rational.
                        And it seems also hard to get them to say what they are doing--
                        of course DSP is not alone in that respect!

                        One of the problems of course is that when one is
                        selling a program, then either the program has to be
                        really cheap(or free) or one has to keep secret how it works
                        because if it costs a lot then people will
                        program it up themselves.

                        All the possibilities exist in DSP:
                        There are free programs, and there are inexpensive
                        devices. Then there are expensive devices for
                        those who want elegance and ease of use and
                        do not mind paying for it. (The Sigtech was expensive
                        because it had a computer inside--at that time, PCs
                        did not have enough processing power to do what it did
                        in real time).

                        But to my mind, there is too much secrecy
                        for maximum progress. Perhaps this is
                        required by money matters. But it is too bad.

                        If people cannot find out what the devices do,
                        how can any consensus emerge from experience about
                        what approach works best?

                        I myself believe that there is often too much processing.
                        But it is hard to demonstrate this --especially since
                        absolutely no one (here or elsewhere) seems really to
                        want to find out , comparatively except a tiny handful of people.

                        Nobody will even try what I suggested about
                        the 1/3 octave EQ. No one much seems to have tried out
                        to what extent the Rives PARC with its three parametric
                        EQ coefficients gives as good bass as DSP units with microcorrection
                        --as good in listening terms. No one in short seems
                        actually to be finding out anything.

                        To my mind, this has roughly the same status as
                        the THD wars--a technical matter that obviously matters
                        pushed to extremes because no one is looking into
                        whether the things being done really matter.

                        People just fasten up Device X and listen and see how
                        they like it. But while,as I often say, listening is the
                        arbiter, if one does not get to know what the device is
                        doing , how can anyone ever find out which approach is working
                        best--except strictly on a case by case basis.

                        For example, does Dirac say in even general terms what they do with their 9 measurements?

                        But then I suppose that changing the sociology of
                        audio is far harder than adjusting the bass in a room!

                        REG

                        PS It is almost unbelievable the extent to which
                        no one finds out anything. Geddes in some many words
                        his book says that the reason dipole bass sounds tighter is that there is less of it. How can it be that this statement
                        goes unchallenged or more precisely undiscussed?
                        (I think it is wrong actually. But in any case it can be checked
                        by EQing the bass up to matching levels and seeing what
                        happens). Nothing ever seems to get figured out.
                        This is very frustrating. P{eople expect one to buy things
                        but they never really explain WHY one is supposed to
                        buy them. And there never seems to be much check
                        on what actually works. Some DSP devices proudly claim
                        2 hz resolution in the bass--but where is there anything
                        to suggest that this sounds better --or even as good--
                        as lower amounts of resolution. Where is the check
                        that spatially unstable things are ignored? Where it
                        the check of ANYTHING? I can't do this all by myself.
                        But I have the feeling that no one much would care if I
                        did. The commercial world goes grinding on without
                        much of any check on anything. Disconcerting to say the least.


                        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > REG,
                        >
                        > You are "not familiar with the device as such" and don't like the name of the company, so I'll be brief. Dirac calls for measurements at 9 locations, so it seems pretty likely that its designers agree with you that "One has to spatially average." And the ability of the user to set the frequency limits on correction indicates additional potential for implementation of your prescriptions.
                        >
                        > In any case, I am quite sorry I mentioned it. I certainly would not have done so had I known that you are "almost beginning to regret that [you] ever told people that DSP was a good idea."
                        >
                        > Jeff
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the
                        > > higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms
                        > > of correcting the speaker itself. In room correction
                        > > of phase in the higher frequencies is silly even to try.
                        > >
                        > > This is mathematical maneuvering gone out of control.
                        > > The very name Dirac makes on cringe. assuming that Dirac
                        > > refers to the so called Dirac delta fucntion and trying to get
                        > > that in reality.
                        > > Filter inversion in the higher frequencies is a
                        > > VERY BAD thing to do. It does not make any
                        > > sense at all. It can be done for a single point
                        > > but it will sound wrong--
                        > > except in a system which has almost all direct sound
                        > > (in which case it is not needed to do phase manipulation
                        > > except for the speakers themselves to get them to be
                        > > phase linear).
                        > >
                        > > This is not about getting the pictures to look nice of the
                        > > impulse response. It is about what one hears. And what
                        > > one hears is not addressed by doing a one point measurement
                        > > and inverting that as a "filter". Not even close.
                        > >
                        > > One has to spatially average. But in the spatial average
                        > > phase information is lost(in the high frequencies).
                        > >
                        > > What this appears to be--I am not familiar with the device as such--
                        > > is DSP engineering gone bonkers with no idea at all
                        > > of how people actually hear sound in rooms.
                        > >
                        > > Power fron DSP to do good is also power to do things wrong.
                        > > Forget filter inversion--wrong thing to do(except
                        > > in cases of verified spatial stability in the lower frequencies,
                        > > where it almost makes sense anyway).
                        > >
                        > > I am almost beginning to regret that I ever told people
                        > > that DSP was a good idea years ago. It seems to have
                        > > gone off the rails almost entirely. By now, the only
                        > > thing at all trustworthy to my mind is
                        > > 1 fixing speakers(good tool for that)
                        > > 2 fixing bass
                        > >
                        > > Above the bass, better concentrate on adjusting for yourself.
                        > > And forget phase manipulation--unless you can verify that
                        > > what you are correcting is stable in space.
                        > >
                        > > Every engineering idea seems to have some sort of oversimplified
                        > > nonsense attached to it, like making THD hundreds of times below threshold. In the DSP world, the analogue has become one point
                        > > filter inversion.
                        > >
                        > > Forget it. The Grand Illusion awaits. At least it was grand.
                        > > Filter inversion in s simplistic form is an illusion all
                        > > right but there is nothing grand about it.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > REG
                        > >
                        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?
                        > > >
                        > > > jeff
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                        > > > > But it does not contain ANY time information.
                        > > > > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
                        > > > > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
                        > > > > knows this of course very well.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
                        > > > > also sensible for time.
                        > > > > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
                        > > > > response only.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Uli
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > > **
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                        > > > > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                        > > > > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                        > > > > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                        > > > > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
                        > > > > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                        > > > > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                        > > > > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                        > > > > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
                        > > > > > pattern should be used. etc.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
                        > > > > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
                        > > > > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                        > > > > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                        > > > > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                        > > > > > alike. You can't do it!
                        > > > > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
                        > > > > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                        > > > > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                        > > > > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                        > > > > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                        > > > > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                        > > > > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                        > > > > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                        > > > > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
                        > > > > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
                        > > > > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                        > > > > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > REG
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Edward Mast
                        Message 11 of 13 , May 28, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment

                          On May 28, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Robert wrote:

                           

                          The multi-location measurement (in Dirac)is interesting,
                          but one wonders what they do with it, especially if
                          they are claiming to adjust phase since
                          what to do with multiple measurements is completely
                          unclear when phase is involved(not too clear for amplitude
                          either). Do they say what they do with it> Show you
                          the measurements?

                          One of the things that is alarming
                          to me about all the DSP development is that
                          one cannot find out what the devices do.
                          Sigtech actually would explain if asked--
                          they had extended white papers. But on the
                          whole it has been hard to find out.

                          I apologize if I over-reacted to the Dirac name.
                          But in fact I am beginning to feel that , while DSP
                          is surely part of the future of audio, it is
                          being promoted in very odd ways.

                          The whole idea to my mind
                          was to get things rationalized, to make sense
                          of a field which was close to nonsense in terms
                          of anythng but raw listening experience. Instead, it
                          is rapidly degenerating into hidden programming
                          schemes and what looks a lot like pseudo-science
                          in many cases.

                          This does not have to happen. But audio being
                          as it is, it is hard to get people to be rational.
                          And it seems also hard to get them to say what they are doing--
                          of course DSP is not alone in that respect!

                          One of the problems of course is that when one is
                          selling a program, then either the program has to be
                          really cheap(or free) or one has to keep secret how it works
                          because if it costs a lot then people will
                          program it up themselves.

                          All the possibilities exist in DSP:
                          There are free programs, and there are inexpensive
                          devices. Then there are expensive devices for
                          those who want elegance and ease of use and
                          do not mind paying for it. (The Sigtech was expensive
                          because it had a computer inside--at that time, PCs
                          did not have enough processing power to do what it did
                          in real time).

                          But to my mind, there is too much secrecy
                          for maximum progress. Perhaps this is
                          required by money matters. But it is too bad.

                          If people cannot find out what the devices do,
                          how can any consensus emerge from experience about
                          what approach works best?

                          I myself believe that there is often too much processing.
                          But it is hard to demonstrate this --especially since
                          absolutely no one (here or elsewhere) seems really to
                          want to find out , comparatively except a tiny handful of people.

                          Nobody will even try what I suggested about
                          the 1/3 octave EQ. No one much seems to have tried out
                          to what extent the Rives PARC with its three parametric
                          EQ coefficients gives as good bass as DSP units with microcorrection
                          --as good in listening terms. No one in short seems
                          actually to be finding out anything.

                          To my mind, this has roughly the same status as
                          the THD wars--a technical matter that obviously matters
                          pushed to extremes because no one is looking into
                          whether the things being done really matter.

                          People just fasten up Device X and listen and see how
                          they like it. But while,as I often say, listening is the
                          arbiter, if one does not get to know what the device is
                          doing , how can anyone ever find out which approach is working
                          best--except strictly on a case by case basis.

                          For example, does Dirac say in even general terms what they do with their 9 measurements?

                          But then I suppose that changing the sociology of
                          audio is far harder than adjusting the bass in a room!

                          REG

                          PS It is almost unbelievable the extent to which
                          no one finds out anything. Geddes in some many words
                          his book says that the reason dipole bass sounds tighter is that there is less of it. How can it be that this statement
                          goes unchallenged or more precisely undiscussed?
                          (I think it is wrong actually. But in any case it can be checked
                          by EQing the bass up to matching levels and seeing what
                          happens). Nothing ever seems to get figured out.
                          This is very frustrating. P{eople expect one to buy things
                          but they never really explain WHY one is supposed to
                          buy them. And there never seems to be much check
                          on what actually works. Some DSP devices proudly claim
                          2 hz resolution in the bass--but where is there anything
                          to suggest that this sounds better --or even as good--
                          as lower amounts of resolution. Where is the check
                          that spatially unstable things are ignored? Where it
                          the check of ANYTHING? I can't do this all by myself.
                          But I have the feeling that no one much would care if I
                          did. The commercial world goes grinding on without
                          much of any check on anything. Disconcerting to say the least.

                          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > REG,
                          >
                          > You are "not familiar with the device as such" and don't like the name of the company, so I'll be brief. Dirac calls for measurements at 9 locations, so it seems pretty likely that its designers agree with you that "One has to spatially average." And the ability of the user to set the frequency limits on correction indicates additional potential for implementation of your prescriptions.
                          >
                          > In any case, I am quite sorry I mentioned it. I certainly would not have done so had I known that you are "almost beginning to regret that [you] ever told people that DSP was a good idea."
                          >
                          > Jeff
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the
                          > > higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms
                          > > of correcting the speaker itself. In room correction
                          > > of phase in the higher frequencies is silly even to try.
                          > >
                          > > This is mathematical maneuvering gone out of control.
                          > > The very name Dirac makes on cringe. assuming that Dirac
                          > > refers to the so called Dirac delta fucntion and trying to get
                          > > that in reality.
                          > > Filter inversion in the higher frequencies is a
                          > > VERY BAD thing to do. It does not make any
                          > > sense at all. It can be done for a single point
                          > > but it will sound wrong--
                          > > except in a system which has almost all direct sound
                          > > (in which case it is not needed to do phase manipulation
                          > > except for the speakers themselves to get them to be
                          > > phase linear).
                          > >
                          > > This is not about getting the pictures to look nice of the
                          > > impulse response. It is about what one hears. And what
                          > > one hears is not addressed by doing a one point measurement
                          > > and inverting that as a "filter". Not even close.
                          > >
                          > > One has to spatially average. But in the spatial average
                          > > phase information is lost(in the high frequencies).
                          > >
                          > > What this appears to be--I am not familiar with the device as such--
                          > > is DSP engineering gone bonkers with no idea at all
                          > > of how people actually hear sound in rooms.
                          > >
                          > > Power fron DSP to do good is also power to do things wrong.
                          > > Forget filter inversion--wrong thing to do(except
                          > > in cases of verified spatial stability in the lower frequencies,
                          > > where it almost makes sense anyway).
                          > >
                          > > I am almost beginning to regret that I ever told people
                          > > that DSP was a good idea years ago. It seems to have
                          > > gone off the rails almost entirely. By now, the only
                          > > thing at all trustworthy to my mind is
                          > > 1 fixing speakers(good tool for that)
                          > > 2 fixing bass
                          > >
                          > > Above the bass, better concentrate on adjusting for yourself.
                          > > And forget phase manipulation--unless you can verify that
                          > > what you are correcting is stable in space.
                          > >
                          > > Every engineering idea seems to have some sort of oversimplified
                          > > nonsense attached to it, like making THD hundreds of times below threshold. In the DSP world, the analogue has become one point
                          > > filter inversion.
                          > >
                          > > Forget it. The Grand Illusion awaits. At least it was grand.
                          > > Filter inversion in s simplistic form is an illusion all
                          > > right but there is nothing grand about it.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > REG
                          > >
                          > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?
                          > > >
                          > > > jeff
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                          > > > > But it does not contain ANY time information.
                          > > > > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
                          > > > > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
                          > > > > knows this of course very well.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
                          > > > > also sensible for time.
                          > > > > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
                          > > > > response only.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Uli
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > > **
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                          > > > > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                          > > > > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                          > > > > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                          > > > > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
                          > > > > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                          > > > > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                          > > > > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                          > > > > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
                          > > > > > pattern should be used. etc.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
                          > > > > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
                          > > > > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                          > > > > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                          > > > > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                          > > > > > alike. You can't do it!
                          > > > > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
                          > > > > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                          > > > > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                          > > > > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                          > > > > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                          > > > > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                          > > > > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                          > > > > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                          > > > > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
                          > > > > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
                          > > > > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                          > > > > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > REG
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >


                        • Edward Mast
                          No one will even try what I said about the 1/3 octave EQ. I ve gone as far as putting a dbx 1/3 octave graphic equalizer into my system. Using a Stereophile
                          Message 12 of 13 , May 28, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "No one will even try what I said about the 1/3 octave EQ."
                            I've gone as far as putting a dbx 1/3 octave graphic equalizer into my system.  Using a Stereophile test CD and Radio Shack meter I found that I had some peaks as high as +5 dbs between the bass frequencies of 200 and 50 cps in either the right or left speaker.  By pulling these down and balancing the response of the two speakers I noticed an improvement in the overall sound.  Since I've not noticed unusual brightness in any but poor recordings, I'm not worrying about  the higher frequencies.  Reasonable?    And I'm not trying to deal with roll off below 40 cps.  Music through the M40s never sounded bad, but it does sound better now.

                            REG, you recent posts concerning what audiophiles are willing - and are unwilling - to do with their systems was ( I think ) right on the mark.  For some of us not facile with much of recent technology, dsp can be daunting.  But analogue EQ is simple enough even for me.  And yes, the difference is audible (using the bypass button on the dbx makes it easy to compare with and without EQ).  So I thank you for reminding us fairly regularly of the major difference frequency response makes.  (Some years ago I bought a dbx unit and had it in my system until I bought a TacT unit, at which time I sold the dbx.  The TacT and I did not get along well together, so I've done without EQ until recently when I bought this dbx).
                            On May 28, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Robert wrote:


                          • regsrus2000
                            Oh, Robert, don t despair. I m not sure how many audiophiles won t try a 1/3 octave equalizer (to cite one example), but I suspect you re underestimating your
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 28, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Oh, Robert, don't despair. I'm not sure how many audiophiles won't try a 1/3 octave equalizer (to cite one example), but I suspect you're underestimating your own level of influence. I have recently bought an octave equalizer and used it to smooth out my bass and roll off the treble (your fault!), and may buy a 1/3 octave model and play with it, too (double fault). I have twice tried using a DSP device (your influence again), and twice returned it. I won't try a third time with the same vendor, both out of embarassment and for fear of being banned from making future purchases. I suspect the failure was not in the device, but in my ignorance regarding its use.

                              One of my problems and, I suspect, a problem many others have, is that the number of variables affecting an audio system's sound is so large, and so different (and therefore seemingly unpredictable) from one person's listening room to another, that one can't ever be reasonably sure one is controlling for all the relevant variables. That problem is compounded by a lack of time (stereo is just my hobby--I basically save lives for a living, or help make them more enjoyable, or at least endurable) and by the lack of consensus about which product designs within a category (e.g., wide-versus-narrow-dispersion speakers, and even how to know which speakers are which kind!) are best suited to reproducing the sound of an orchestra (assuming that that is what one wants to do, for example).

                              And then there is the whole nonsense of cost. And I use "nonsense" on purpose, for what possible sense can it make to say that one might choose a speaker (to stay with speakers, for the purpose of this discussion) that costs ~$1,000 per pair or one which costs ~$150,000 per pair, or some figure in between? There may be some point to such disparity in pricing, but it can't have much to do with sound. And why, by the way, is there so little correlation between price and sound quality? That makes no sense at all, and makes me chary of buying much of anything, absent real evidence, lest I'm just being played for a fool.

                              (By the way, what is an "entry-level" product? Why would anyone want to buy something to replace a thing they wouldn't have bought if they had known the better thing to have bought in the first place, and maybe for the same or less cost? I'd rather spend the other money on recordings or concert tickets.)

                              As much as I know about audio, I've read this forum long enough to know that most or all of this group probably know even more than I do. But with all that I know, pulling it all together to construct a systematic understanding of the whole is truly like "herding cats" with the bits and pieces of that knowledge. That lack of an organized comprehension of how all the knowledge fits together is another impediment to knowing what to do next.

                              Assuming I had the time and the money, I still wouldn't really know what to buy. Except for a few specific models mentioned here (the Cerwin-Vegas, the PSB T6s, etc.), shopping for speakers would appear to be about as certain as picking stocks. Better for my purposes, it would seem, to take reasonably good speakers, pay lots of attention to room acoustics and setup, equalize them at least enough to tame any egregious problems, and then enjoy music until I notice (or learn about) something else to refine.

                              I thought seriously, incidentally, about buying the C-Vs. What you wrote about their accurate reproduction of the piano really spoke to me. But then I looked at their physical measurements and realized they would overwhelm our large room. There's no spouse acceptance factor problem--I could put a wooly mammoth in the living room and Susi would think it was nifty. We're that kind of couple. It's just that it's a very artsy room and the C-Vs would be a bit industrial and a LOT big, in a way the Quads, for example, never seemed. (As for the T6s, I'm not sure they would be large enough for the space, nor have I heard them yet.)

                              In truth, all of the unknowns about what it would take to raise my system to "the next level" end up having something of a paralyzing effect, as I suspect they must on others. Better, it often seems, to accept the fact that "it's just a stereo" (though one through which musicians are regularly able to move my very soul) and postpone changing speakers (or anything else) until I think I know more about what I'm doing. And you (and HM, and Tom, and Yip, and everyone else here) are helping. Even if you sometimes wonder if you're only talking to the walls, and doubt that anyone will actually try anything you suggest. So please, don't stop.

                              David in NC (still without a wooly mammoth, but you never know....)



                              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > The multi-location measurement (in Dirac)is interesting,
                              > but one wonders what they do with it, especially if
                              > they are claiming to adjust phase since
                              > what to do with multiple measurements is completely
                              > unclear when phase is involved(not too clear for amplitude
                              > either). Do they say what they do with it> Show you
                              > the measurements?
                              >
                              > One of the things that is alarming
                              > to me about all the DSP development is that
                              > one cannot find out what the devices do.
                              > Sigtech actually would explain if asked--
                              > they had extended white papers. But on the
                              > whole it has been hard to find out.
                              >
                              > I apologize if I over-reacted to the Dirac name.
                              > But in fact I am beginning to feel that , while DSP
                              > is surely part of the future of audio, it is
                              > being promoted in very odd ways.
                              >
                              > The whole idea to my mind
                              > was to get things rationalized, to make sense
                              > of a field which was close to nonsense in terms
                              > of anythng but raw listening experience. Instead, it
                              > is rapidly degenerating into hidden programming
                              > schemes and what looks a lot like pseudo-science
                              > in many cases.
                              >
                              > This does not have to happen. But audio being
                              > as it is, it is hard to get people to be rational.
                              > And it seems also hard to get them to say what they are doing--
                              > of course DSP is not alone in that respect!
                              >
                              > One of the problems of course is that when one is
                              > selling a program, then either the program has to be
                              > really cheap(or free) or one has to keep secret how it works
                              > because if it costs a lot then people will
                              > program it up themselves.
                              >
                              > All the possibilities exist in DSP:
                              > There are free programs, and there are inexpensive
                              > devices. Then there are expensive devices for
                              > those who want elegance and ease of use and
                              > do not mind paying for it. (The Sigtech was expensive
                              > because it had a computer inside--at that time, PCs
                              > did not have enough processing power to do what it did
                              > in real time).
                              >
                              > But to my mind, there is too much secrecy
                              > for maximum progress. Perhaps this is
                              > required by money matters. But it is too bad.
                              >
                              > If people cannot find out what the devices do,
                              > how can any consensus emerge from experience about
                              > what approach works best?
                              >
                              > I myself believe that there is often too much processing.
                              > But it is hard to demonstrate this --especially since
                              > absolutely no one (here or elsewhere) seems really to
                              > want to find out , comparatively except a tiny handful of people.
                              >
                              > Nobody will even try what I suggested about
                              > the 1/3 octave EQ. No one much seems to have tried out
                              > to what extent the Rives PARC with its three parametric
                              > EQ coefficients gives as good bass as DSP units with microcorrection
                              > --as good in listening terms. No one in short seems
                              > actually to be finding out anything.
                              >
                              > To my mind, this has roughly the same status as
                              > the THD wars--a technical matter that obviously matters
                              > pushed to extremes because no one is looking into
                              > whether the things being done really matter.
                              >
                              > People just fasten up Device X and listen and see how
                              > they like it. But while,as I often say, listening is the
                              > arbiter, if one does not get to know what the device is
                              > doing , how can anyone ever find out which approach is working
                              > best--except strictly on a case by case basis.
                              >
                              > For example, does Dirac say in even general terms what they do with their 9 measurements?
                              >
                              > But then I suppose that changing the sociology of
                              > audio is far harder than adjusting the bass in a room!
                              >
                              > REG
                              >
                              > PS It is almost unbelievable the extent to which
                              > no one finds out anything. Geddes in some many words
                              > his book says that the reason dipole bass sounds tighter is that there is less of it. How can it be that this statement
                              > goes unchallenged or more precisely undiscussed?
                              > (I think it is wrong actually. But in any case it can be checked
                              > by EQing the bass up to matching levels and seeing what
                              > happens). Nothing ever seems to get figured out.
                              > This is very frustrating. P{eople expect one to buy things
                              > but they never really explain WHY one is supposed to
                              > buy them. And there never seems to be much check
                              > on what actually works. Some DSP devices proudly claim
                              > 2 hz resolution in the bass--but where is there anything
                              > to suggest that this sounds better --or even as good--
                              > as lower amounts of resolution. Where is the check
                              > that spatially unstable things are ignored? Where it
                              > the check of ANYTHING? I can't do this all by myself.
                              > But I have the feeling that no one much would care if I
                              > did. The commercial world goes grinding on without
                              > much of any check on anything. Disconcerting to say the least.
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > REG,
                              > >
                              > > You are "not familiar with the device as such" and don't like the name of the company, so I'll be brief. Dirac calls for measurements at 9 locations, so it seems pretty likely that its designers agree with you that "One has to spatially average." And the ability of the user to set the frequency limits on correction indicates additional potential for implementation of your prescriptions.
                              > >
                              > > In any case, I am quite sorry I mentioned it. I certainly would not have done so had I known that you are "almost beginning to regret that [you] ever told people that DSP was a good idea."
                              > >
                              > > Jeff
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > But no one else can adjust it(phase behavior) either, not in the
                              > > > higher frequencies in a meaningful way, except in terms
                              > > > of correcting the speaker itself. In room correction
                              > > > of phase in the higher frequencies is silly even to try.
                              > > >
                              > > > This is mathematical maneuvering gone out of control.
                              > > > The very name Dirac makes on cringe. assuming that Dirac
                              > > > refers to the so called Dirac delta fucntion and trying to get
                              > > > that in reality.
                              > > > Filter inversion in the higher frequencies is a
                              > > > VERY BAD thing to do. It does not make any
                              > > > sense at all. It can be done for a single point
                              > > > but it will sound wrong--
                              > > > except in a system which has almost all direct sound
                              > > > (in which case it is not needed to do phase manipulation
                              > > > except for the speakers themselves to get them to be
                              > > > phase linear).
                              > > >
                              > > > This is not about getting the pictures to look nice of the
                              > > > impulse response. It is about what one hears. And what
                              > > > one hears is not addressed by doing a one point measurement
                              > > > and inverting that as a "filter". Not even close.
                              > > >
                              > > > One has to spatially average. But in the spatial average
                              > > > phase information is lost(in the high frequencies).
                              > > >
                              > > > What this appears to be--I am not familiar with the device as such--
                              > > > is DSP engineering gone bonkers with no idea at all
                              > > > of how people actually hear sound in rooms.
                              > > >
                              > > > Power fron DSP to do good is also power to do things wrong.
                              > > > Forget filter inversion--wrong thing to do(except
                              > > > in cases of verified spatial stability in the lower frequencies,
                              > > > where it almost makes sense anyway).
                              > > >
                              > > > I am almost beginning to regret that I ever told people
                              > > > that DSP was a good idea years ago. It seems to have
                              > > > gone off the rails almost entirely. By now, the only
                              > > > thing at all trustworthy to my mind is
                              > > > 1 fixing speakers(good tool for that)
                              > > > 2 fixing bass
                              > > >
                              > > > Above the bass, better concentrate on adjusting for yourself.
                              > > > And forget phase manipulation--unless you can verify that
                              > > > what you are correcting is stable in space.
                              > > >
                              > > > Every engineering idea seems to have some sort of oversimplified
                              > > > nonsense attached to it, like making THD hundreds of times below threshold. In the DSP world, the analogue has become one point
                              > > > filter inversion.
                              > > >
                              > > > Forget it. The Grand Illusion awaits. At least it was grand.
                              > > > Filter inversion in s simplistic form is an illusion all
                              > > > right but there is nothing grand about it.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > REG
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "jeff" <jeffstakehifi@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > The Dirac people make this same point, that the same frequency response may be achieved with different time domain behavior, and I think that is why they use mixed-phase filters. Recall my analogy to anti-skid control in cars. Can you imagine a user trying to manually adjust the time-domain performance of his audio system?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > jeff
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Uli Brueggemann <uli.brueggemann@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > A frequency response contailns all informations about frequencies.
                              > > > > > But it does not contain ANY time information.
                              > > > > > So it is possible to generate an unlimited number of identical frequency
                              > > > > > responses but with different time domain behaviour of the signals. Robert
                              > > > > > knows this of course very well.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > But music is not a steady state signal without time information. And we are
                              > > > > > also sensible for time.
                              > > > > > This means that it does not make any sense just to match a frequency
                              > > > > > response only.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Uli
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Robert <regtas43@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > > **
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Enter DSP. Now frequency response has been removed as a variable.
                              > > > > > > This is a big step forward. Now people can think about the rest
                              > > > > > > of the situation, namely how things ought to work , freed
                              > > > > > > of the need to worry about frequency response. A big help--
                              > > > > > > up to about 20 years ago, audio(having stupidly turned its back on overt
                              > > > > > > analogue EQ) was fighting with its hand tied together--it
                              > > > > > > was so hard to get frequency response of speakers right that
                              > > > > > > the effort ate almost all the rest.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > So we now could be thinking about the next stage--given that one
                              > > > > > > can adjust the response, what ELSE should be done? What kind of radiation
                              > > > > > > pattern should be used. etc.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Oddly enough, radition pattern was always a big thing--the difference
                              > > > > > > between speakers of different patterns is, in anything but a huge and
                              > > > > > > heavily damped room--as audible in its own way as frequency response.
                              > > > > > > Try it out--EQ a horn speaker and an omni to match in response in
                              > > > > > > any way you want to interpret that phrase. try to make them sound
                              > > > > > > alike. You can't do it!
                              > > > > > > Midrange timbre and brightness level can be almost matched(but not quite)
                              > > > > > > but the sound remains stubbornly different.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > But audio people seem frozen. Times change, But it will
                              > > > > > > probably take a new generation of reviewers(if there is one)
                              > > > > > > to stop reviewing frequency response and treat it as
                              > > > > > > the adjustable thing it is and review something else.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Ironic, isn't it, that the audio junkies with their slider EQs
                              > > > > > > who changed their speakers around to sound the way they wanted
                              > > > > > > to the extent that that was possible, those guys treated
                              > > > > > > with such contempt by the High End(and the British magazines) turned
                              > > > > > > out to be RIGHT--they were worrying about what was worth worrying about!
                              > > > > > > not frequency response--hugely important but adjustable--but about
                              > > > > > > radiation pattern, distortion levels, etc..
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Off to see the restoration of The Grand Illusion.
                              > > > > > > (no reference to audio intended-but if the shoe fits...)
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > REG
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.