Why!? Please Tell Me Why!

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

 

Correct. 

 

As well, the absolute synchronisation of the sound waves from each instrument that are present in the original performance are lost as the sound of each instrument comes from two (or more) sources that are not equidistant from the perceiving organs. (This phenomenon is also involved in why some of the "old style" recordings made with a stereo pair of microphones can sound uncannily real.)

 

Omnidirectional speakers or similar (MBL, Bose) can sometimes give the impression of balanced sound from any position in the room but it's not actually true. The imaging will always suffer outside the sweet spot.

 

Au contraire. Remarkably, the ear/brain compensates for the "strange" aural situation, and reconstructs what it considers to be the correct 'meaning' of all the sound it hears - what I find to be an apt explanation is to consider music happening in a soundproof room in front of one, walled off from you; cut a couple of rectangles in the shape of typical speakers where normal speakers would be, in that separating wall ... what would you hear, as you moved around in your adjacent listening room?

[Ralf11]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A speaker is just a speaker, irrespective of how flash, esoteric the design appears - whether it's omni watermelons, or "direct" plates the same principles are used to pulse air movement - this becomes clear when vastly different designs end up presenting the same sound field, subjectively.

 

how about if I blow a cloud of gas into pressure waves?

 

dunno if that manf. is still around...

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

how about if I blow a cloud of gas into pressure waves?

 

dunno if that manf. is still around...

 Reminds me of the Plasma Tweeters that a friend of mine once had.

They sounded great , but were expensive to maintain.

 We nicknamed them "The Flame Throwers."

[Ralf11]

Lots of people like to listen while relaxing with a cigar...

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Reminds me of the Plasma Tweeters that a friend of mine once had.

They sounded great , but were expensive to maintain.

 We nicknamed them "The Flame Throwers."

 

Weren't they bad for your health? The ionised air thing ...

 

In the end, what counts are the air vibrations that impact on one's body, specifically the ears. How they were generated is up to the consumer ...

[opus101]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Yeah I HATE IT when listening in stereo and only one speaker disappears.

 

Did happen to me one time when I miscalculated a coupling cap value on one channel. The sound was 'pulled' towards the less disappeared speaker in the bass. Quite disgusting an effect.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Gloggle is a very carefully tuned version of Google - you see what I do is take the normal idea of a search, which is to 'place' the parts of the results in reasonable positions in the whole list of hits - and that's what one sees in the "sweet spot" of a decent search engine. The difference I talk of is that the sweet spot never disappears, no matter how absurd the search terms are; it never "pops out" of the 'holographic' presentation, no matter where you are in the computer room.

[fas42]

Blast!!! ... already taken ...

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Remarkably, the ear/brain compensates for the "strange" aural situation, and reconstructs what it considers to be the correct 'meaning' of all the sound it hears

Maybe your ear/brain does this but I guarantee you that mine doesn't and from other responses you've received, I dare say that very few others' ear/brain can do that either!

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Weren't they bad for your health? The ionised air thing ...

 

In the end, what counts are the air vibrations that impact on one's body, specifically the ears. How they were generated is up to the consumer ...

Yes, plasma speakers produce ozone if they work in air. It is possible to build a plasma speaker that ionizes an inert gas and not make ozone (which is poisonous). In the mid 1950s - before stereo, there used to be one on the market called the "Ionovac" tweeter. It was somewhat impractical because you needed to buy a big cylinder of whatever gas (I forget) it used and of course, depending upon how much you listened to it, would determine how fast you would go through a cylinder. It became really impractical when stereo came in...

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Lots of people like to listen while relaxing with a cigar...

I used to love a good cigar. The idea of it is appealing to me yet... I quit smoking cigars mostly because they stank-up my house and my clothes. I didn't inhale cigar smoke, so I wasn't so worried about the health aspects as I only smoked  a couple of cigars a week and never smoked cigarettes. The smell of stale cigar smoke put me off. Haven't had one in 30 years. Used to love Tabacalaras from the Philippines. That Cagayan tobacco from Luzon made a really flavorful cigar.  

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I described it exactly ... you see, if there was a trumpet in the recording it wouldn't be located adjacent to the microphone on that side - yes, there can always be extremes in how things are recorded, but the normal idea of a recording is to 'place' the parts of the mix in reasonable positions in the whole - and that's what one hears in the "sweet spot" of a decent rig. The difference I talk of is that the sweet spot never disappears, no matter how absurd the listening position is; it never "pops out" of the 'holographic' presentation, no matter where you are in the room.

A lot of people on this thread would disagree with you when you say that you described your phenomenon exactly.  I for one have no idea what you're talking about, Frank.

[wendysire523]

Just now, STC said:

At that point you begin to search for whatever things that can effect a small change (often imaginary) or distinguish your setup from the rest. This will continue to fuel the interest in your system and keep you and your friends focused on the hobby.

Interesting insight! I wonder it is possible for them to keep their interest in sound system with consciously knowing that monster cables might not help?  

[STC]

52 minutes ago, wendysire523 said:

Interesting insight! I wonder it is possible for them to keep their interest in sound system with consciously knowing that monster cables might not help?  

 

That python cable enticed enough interest and I am sure that will be good enough to attract more attention for sometime until it gets to be replaced by another. IMO, I don’t think there can be any hardware that will degrade the performance. 

[beancounter]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, plasma speakers produce ozone if they work in air. It is possible to build a plasma speaker that ionizes an inert gas and not make ozone (which is poisonous). In the mid 1950s - before stereo, there used to be one on the market called the "Ionovac" tweeter. It was somewhat impractical because you needed to buy a big cylinder of whatever gas (I forget) it used and of course, depending upon how much you listened to it, would determine how fast you would go through a cylinder. It became really impractical when stereo came in...

 

Plasmatronics was a late '70's / early '80's speaker with helium tanks.  I heard a pair back then.  Not special enough for the fuss.

 

I think Acapella in Germany still makes a horn loaded plasma tweeter (no gas tanks).  And there's always DIY, they're not all that complicated.

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, beancounter said:

 

Plasmatronics was a late '70's / early '80's speaker with helium tanks.  I heard a pair back then.  Not special enough for the fuss.

 

I think Acapella in Germany still makes a horn loaded plasma tweeter (no gas tanks).  And there's always DIY, they're not all that complicated.

Yes, they are fairly simple (no moving parts). I heard the Acapellas at the San Francisco Dagogo Audio show several years ago. You are right, they did have an plasma tweeter and I seem to recall that they mentioned that they had some proprietary method of keeping the ionized ozone from mixing with the room air. And you are right again when you say that plasma tweeters aren't worth the fuss. Theoretically, they should be next to perfect because they are massless. The reality is that for all intents and purposes, today's low mass tweeters, ribbons, ESLs, beryllium, diamond, etc., the difference between massless and extremely low mass doesn't really make enough (any?) audible difference.  

[phosphorein]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, they are fairly simple (no moving parts). I heard the Acapellas at the San Francisco Dagogo Audio show several years ago. You are right, they did have an plasma tweeter and I seem to recall that they mentioned that they had some proprietary method of keeping the ionized ozone from mixing with the room air. And you are right again when you say that plasma tweeters aren't worth the fuss. Theoretically, they should be next to perfect because they are massless. The reality is that for all intents and purposes, today's low mass tweeters, ribbons, ESLs, beryllium, diamond, etc., the difference between massless and extremely low mass doesn't really make enough (any?) audible difference.  

 

I recall that they were tempermental and not reliable. Also they emitted significant rf into the vicinity of the speaker, so induced electrical noise could be a problem.

[fas42]

18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Maybe your ear/brain does this but I guarantee you that mine doesn't and from other responses you've received, I dare say that very few others' ear/brain can do that either!

 

I hear exactly the same as you and everyone else does with conventional quality playback - which means all other systems; and my own, when in non-optimised state. It's all about pushing the quality above a critical level - think nuclear reactions, which require a "critical mass" before the exciting stuff happens ...

 

This is a switch in the brain - it's as reliable and predictable as anything human can be; it's always worked, for me, over 30 years - but only if I go to a lot of time and effort to optimise a rig at that moment to get to this quality level! This can be irritatingly time consuming, and a nuisance with respect to other electrical needs in the house - but can be done as needed, "to prove the point".

[fas42]

18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

A lot of people on this thread would disagree with you when you say that you described your phenomenon exactly.  I for one have no idea what you're talking about, Frank.

 

A simple example: a piano is being played, some nice Beethoven sonata say; it's midway between the speakers, about five feet back from the plane of the speakers. I can "see" the piano there, I can point to precisely where it's located - its physical presence is, to use a spectacular term , palpable.

 

Now, I can go to anywhere in the room, in front of the line of the speakers, and every aspect of the sense of that piano never varies, it just stays there, as a "pointable to" object ... just like the real thing, in fact ... .

[fas42]

Another example,

 

 

30 years ago when I heard this first track being reproduced well, it blew me away - fabulous, fabulous stuff - atmosphere to kill for, superb quality in every sound element of the mix - this should blow your socks off, if a rig is working well ...

[Allan F]

19 hours ago, gmgraves said:

A lot of people on this thread would disagree with you when you say that you described your phenomenon exactly.  I for one have no idea what you're talking about, Frank.

 

No worries, George. Like that man who lives in a big White House in Washington, D.C., some people have their own separate reality.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Don't sweat it, George. Like that man who lives in a big White House in Washington, D.C., some people have theiir own separate reality.

 

The reality is out there for others to experience - it's rare, because it, currently, requires a highly "debugged" playback system - one can't buy this, unless one happens to make some very lucky decisions - DIY efforts are the best methods at the moment.

 

People have heard systems do this well at times - but then makes excuses for what they heard: the speakers were unusual; the room was set up by a master; I was in a certain mood; the recording was especially good, etc, etc, etc ... if you wave away the opportunity to understand more, then it's your loss ...

[Allan F]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

... if you wave away the opportunity to understand more, then it's your loss ...

 

It is no loss to miss the opportunity to understand and/or experience that which does not, in reality, exist.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, phosphorein said:

 

I recall that they were tempermental and not reliable. Also they emitted significant rf into the vicinity of the speaker, so induced electrical noise could be a problem.

I don't doubt that in the least. Essentially such a device would be a spark-gap transmitter! 

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

It is no loss to miss the opportunity to understand and/or experience that which does not, in reality, exist.

 

And why are you so certain, so positive that it can't exist?