Jump to content

shtf

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About shtf

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Ummmm. Greta herself admits she has Aspergers which is a variation of autism and is nothing to make fun of. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/greta-thunberg-is-facing-attacks-over-her-aspergers-but-heres-why-companies-want-to-hire-people-on-the-autism-spectrum-2019-09-25 Then again, NPR won't tell you that. Among the many other things they won't tell you. Hey, did I mention that condemnation without investigation is indoctrination? I'm pretty sure I already said it but I'm guessing you missed it.
  2. It's nonsensical that you think I somehow was comparing Greta to Nazis. I was merely illustrating how perverted governments and globalists use similar tools to promote their propaganda. See below. Perhaps I could have substititued your charicature in place of Greta's but I don't have one. Please send me one. In case you're unaware, one of the Third Reich's many strategies was first indoctrinate the women, then the children, and the men will follow. Have you noticed in recent weeks all the children protesting climate change? If you wanna' follow the leadership of a brainwashed / indoctrinated 16-year old girl with autism, that is your choice. As for George Soros, yes, to the best of my knowledge he's a major player in this new world order / globalist movement. Far more engaged than even somebody like David Rockefeller, if that were even possible. But he's still a puppet. As for jews, not sure why you bring them up, except that Soros himself is jewish and was a traitor to his own. What are you insinuating? That Soros doesn't exist? That he's not a globalist or that he's not caused great damage to the US and to other nations? That globalism is good thing led by those who care about you and your family? It's been said that condemnation without investigation gives clear evidence of indoctrination and I'd venture you've substatiated that with your response here. Then again, if all of your news comes from NPR and mainstream media, well, that's still a choice you made long ago and you have only yourself to blame. Speaking of which, feel free to research operation mockingbird that was started in the 1950's and continues to this day. Or since you don't seem too keen on research maybe you can learn something from this 43 sec excerpt of a speech David Rockefeller gave at the Council on Foreign Relations back in 1991. That could give you some insight. Unless of course you think the CFR itself is a branch of gov't including a group of really nice people who have your best interest in mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZD7pDPK7N8
  3. Before some of you get too worked up over Greta's angry speech, why not spend some time reading up on Club of Rome? If you do, you should discover that it was David Rockefeller (the grand daddy of US globalism) and his globalist buddies who in I think 1978 at Rockefeller's vacation home in Rome conceived of the idea of creating a global crisis that the entire world could rally around and contribute their resources to. They called it Global Warming. If you do your research there, you should easily discover why they did it (it ain't pretty) and why some of you are evidence that their strategy is working rather well. Maybe then you can fast forward to 2009 and google ClimateGate and there you should discover that some of you have been duped for decades (by scientists no less) and there you'll also discover why overnight they ceased using the phrase Global Warming and now use the phrase Climate Change. And if you think all this is joke, why not spend a few moments to research what some of the globalists' ultimate goals are. Try googling Georgia Guidestones and there you'll see in 10 languages the globalists 10 tenets / suggestions for mother earth. I know, I know. Some of you are thinking I'm just another nutty conspiracy theorist but that's not true at all. I'm just smarter than some of you.
  4. I find it disrespectful if not downright rude when somebody cuts'n pastes another's writings and intentionally selectively omits parts of the quoted text to further one's own narrative. So I'd like to correct Mr. Slapowitz' error by reintroducing Mr. Atkinson's concluding remarks in its entirety. ".... About two seconds before the singers start, there is a very quiet noise toward the back of the choir. It sounds somewhat like a generic tick on the original WAV file, more like a sound made by a human being in a real space in the MQA version." It was hearing the transformation of this tick that I envisioned the universe spreading its legs anchored firmly in the stirrups and as I looked into the canal recessed between those long beautiful legs I realized I was experiencing the birth of a new world.
  5. Forgive me for my lack of memory on facts about an inferior technology that introduces a phenomena of sound as an alternative to so many systems that are otherwise boring and unmusical. But isn't multi-channel kinda' the naturual progression once one embraces Ambiophonics? I see in Ralph's system he has many speakers. Don't you have 16 or 20 speakers in your "reference" system also? I can't speak for others but in my case I've heard of biaural recordings but had never knowingly listened to one. That is until you and I engaged in a prior discussion about 5 months ago. So I went out and bought a couple to listen to. Not bad but nothing overwhelming either. And no I performed no system alterations. As for interaural crosstalk cancellation, again, we're essentially talking flavors of sonic holography, right? Well, then of course we add in Ralph's algorithms "to make it sound right". Ok. It's in my head. BTW, what's not in your head is these are all mid to low fi systems at best. I look at this picture below and all I see is a performance-limiting nightmare regardless product quality or price and regardless of how many new angles the seriously compromised sound is coming at you. But you can't see that because you and Ralph haven't a clue how seriously compromised your playback systems' level of musicality really is. Behold above is an excellent example of yet another mid to low fi system. Ever wonder why we never see a Formula 1 race car towing a U-Haul trailer around the track? IMO, aside from the phenomena of surround sound, from a pure performance and levels of musicality perspective, this is at least as big a joke as MQA or a bad acid trip. But I can see from some naive perspectives systems such as this may appear as a wet dream. I can say that, just like you and Ralph, all of their studies and R&D were conducted using severely compromised playback systems and without exeception. If and it is so, I'd also venture that at least some of their findings, just like yours and Ralph's, are potentially just as serverely compromised. I can also pretty much assure you that just like you and Ralph, they too haven't a clue what plagues every last playback system. Any studies conducted with significantly compromised playback systems would also translate to potential compromises in any subsequent product design. But let's be honest. You and Ralph obviously think Toole and others know less than you, otherwise you wouldn't be evangelizing Ambiophonics with such fervor. Why don't you fly him out to my house and I'd be happy to demonstrate how far short of the musical mark Ambiophonics is? I dunno. What is Ambiophonics exactly? Software algorithms? My technology is focused on sensitive electronic instruments. If such hardware is associated with Ambiophinics as it always seems that Ambiophonics is surrounded by a grotesque overabundance of hardware, then that hardware would be potentially impacted just like any other hardware. The software is really irrelevant as my technology has everything to do with sensitive electronic instruments where precision and accuracy is paramount. Since you and Ralph completely ignore this sector, I see nothing about Ambiophonics that might lead me to believe that precision and accuracy are paramount but if Ambiophonics involves the use of sensitive electronic instrument, then the answer is yes. I can say with confidence that with the technologies I employ and will the vast amounts of music info embedded in every last recording previosuly inaudible due to a much raised universal noise floor and now becoming audible with a much lowered noise floor, Ambiophonics should be completely unnecessary. But it's entirely possible crosstalk cancellation might indeed be a longstanding shortcoming that needs to be addressed to some degree, whether it be Ralph's flavor or another's. I leave the door open here for the simple reason that I'm dealing with the cause rather than the effects like Ambiophonics and MQA do. And when the cause is sufficiently addressed the effects change little to much. Surely you agree with me here, right? So answer me this. Why do you insist on moderating your threads on Ambiophonics? And why is it that with what seems to be nearly every thread you start or post you make is just a lead in for Ambiophonics? Why so controlling and so clandestine? Why not allow others to speak freely and let the chips fall where they may? And why not come right out and say, "I'm bought and sold on Ambiophonics and I'm either a paid or unpaid agent for Ambiophonics and as an Ambiophonics user I'm convinced Ambiophonics is the ultimate solution for all who seek the ultimate in playback performance? Is that so hard? Cuz IMO, right now you're making Ambiophonics smell a lot like MQA.
  6. There you go acting silly. Again. Who has time to waste / spend on every inferior technology that comes along, just like MQA? Better yet, who has time to spend / waste on a technology that deals entirely with the effects rather than the cause? As stated previously, Ambiophonics does nothing to address the distortions that greatly that's GREATLY compromise the fidelity of the input / output signal of our playback systems. The diference I see between Ambiophonics and MQA is that MQA claims to address and resolve these rather serious distortions (though MQA does no such thing) while Ambiophonics simply ignores the significantly compromised signal and instead offers a Sonic Holography-like solution combined with 10, 20, or 50 surround speakers and amps and cables along with some algorithms. I knew and still know some associates, including industry insiders who take this hobby quite seriously and I've yet to encounter a single one make any mention of Ambiophonics, bianuaral recordings, or even sonic hologrophy, or even multi-channel. Even though Ralph and Amibiphonics have been around for quite some time. Frankly, I'm surprised some of them haven't. And though Ambiophonics may provide some benefit, in and of itself it can do nothing to irmprove the musicality of a mid-fi system, except by adding mutiple more channels of sound carrying the same already compromised signal and with each new electronic component induce even further compromise to an already severely compromised signal but still generate a phenomena of surround sound that in and of itself is obviously pleasing to some. As much as I despise everything about MQA, I'd have to venture that MQA has the potential to generate a more musically natural sound (not saying it does) to a given high-end playback system than Ambiophonics. But with MQA I see nothing but ill intent while with Ambiophonics I do not see ill-intent but rather I only see naivete. However, with you moderating more and more of the threads you open on a given subject, which always eventually points the audience to Ambiophonics as the ultimate solution I'm really having second thoughts about the no ill-intent thing.
  7. "Ralph returned to his great passion, audio. According to Ralph, stereo and multichannel playback didn’t sound right to him. He identified the problem as interaural crosstalk, a then already-known artifact that is created during the operation of virtually all stereo playback systems." -Howard Kneller Senior Contributor SoundStage! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO, Ralph is naive (or arrogant) to think interaural crosstalk is the only or even the most significant barrier toward a musical playback system "not sounding right". I think Ralph's vast resources spent and the potential investments in software and hardware nightmare required to generate an impressive 3D phonomena of sound that some find impressive only substantiates my suspicions about Ralph, his technologies, and his pursuits. Which doesn't say much for Howard Kneller either. Not to say that Ralph's endeavors are a complete waste but it's pretty much assured that he has done zero to address the universal distortions that generate such a raised noise floor in virtually every last playback system such that that a good percentage of the music info embedded in a given recording, though read and processed, remains inaudible at the speaker. Due to the much raised noise floor resulting from these universal distortions. IOW, I suspect there is some sonic benefit to Ralph's technologies that takes a severely compromised music playback presentatiion by giving it an improved level of 3-D, at great expense mind you. But make no mistake, the presentation itself still remains just as severely compromised because the fidelity of the input signal itself still remains significantly compromised. In fact, an Ambiophonics playback presentation is guaranteed to sound even more compromised due to the additional hardware, connections, wiring, etc. Kinda' like improved 3-D at all costs. But I suppose playing with Ambiophonics is better than robbing banks.
  8. It seems obvious to me that Atkinson is unaware that truth itself is a force of nature. But I wonder if anybody ever shared with Atkinson the concept that the cover up is most always worse than the crime. Then again, as I ponder the potential harm Atkinson and his magazine have induced on the industry over the years even prior to MQA, I'm kinda' fond of the thought that he'll spend the rest of his days and nights defending the MQA nothing burger.
  9. IMO, a sure tell-tale sign of those who “don’t get it” are the ones who flippantly make statements that directly correlate performance to cost. If there was any truth to your propaganda, then how does your statement hold water when my $1300 OPPO 105D ever-so-slightly edged out over my $8500 Esoteric UX-3SE with its infamous VRDS transport? Or especially when after utilizing the OPPO’s passive volume attenuator and its USB signal processes (to a 1TB SSD) and by-passing the OPPO’s CD transport the OPPO was significantly more musical in every aspect? Better yet, how does your statement hold water when I replaced my $8k BMC int. amp with a pair of $2500 Wyred-4-Sound mini-mono-block amps that in comparison literally made the BMC (no slouch itself) sound like a $150 BestBuy receiver? Answer me this. How much more musical is a $10k preamp over a $5k preamp? Or a $20k amp over a $10k amp? You can’t answer it because it’s a silly question and any attempt to answer it is far more silly. Such statements about price having a direct correlation to performance are not only nonsensical but they’re a dead giveaway for those who may enjoy listening to playback music but lack any discernment about what they hear. It’s also usually a dead giveaway that such a person is an avid reader of popular high-end audio magazines. If this describes you, why not do something about this as it’s entirely within your scope? As for the rest of your post, because of your seemingly obvious current state, I could see no value there either.
  10. Thanks, Frank. Yeah, high-end audio certainly has more than its fair share of these types. There’s an abundance of hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans in every industry but these types aren’t even that. Hacks, bush-leaguers, and also-rans are usually genuine and well-intentioned but lack the talent and/or tools to perform a sufficient or better job. These are more self-delusional parasitical charlatans taking their brains out for a joy ride to demonstrate some form of perverted supreme intelligence that actually works to some extent when conversing amongst themselves and some newbees that come along. In this case it seems at least Jabbr was cognizant enough not continue our meaningful monologue, I mean meaningful dialogue as he probably realized he can’t win because of his own admissions. I particularly got a chuckle out of Jabbr’s earlier response as the entire thing was nothing more than a diversion while attempting to gracefully bow out pretending to let me off his hook while still trying to flex a brain muscle or two. Can’t say the same for Ralfy11, who continues to struggle thinking one day he might walk away a winner. But make no mistake. This is the real snake oil being peddled everywhere throughout high-end audio and a colossal waste of everybody’s time including their own. As I like to say, the mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially on others. I just like to poke a finger in their eye once in a while but like a plague they are everywhere. I appreciate the note. You’re a good egg with good ears.
  11. Since I’ve no industry affiliation and I’m not trying to sell my technology, you no longer consider my technology to be snake oil? How does that work? At least 2. So now we’re parting ways? I can understand why you wouldn’t want to confront Jena Labs about your claims that the concept of bi-directional noise is bizarre. As for your great endeavors with vibrations and your subsequent failures there, I would think any scientist worth their weight would want to evaluate and determine how they could have fallen so far short of the mark or just be plain wrong. After all, you did say in that thread you opened, “Not everyone believes that vibrations have audible effects.” This is your time. For example. Have you considered the possibility that some sources of vibration induce far more sonic harm than other sources? Have you considered the possibility that prioritizing and addressing the less impacting sources of vibrations, one might actually worsen the situation with the greater impacting sources of vibrations? Have you considered the possibility that you’ve no clue what you’re measuring nor do you have a clue to sufficiently interpret those measurements? Have you considered the possibility that your mousetrap was actually a fabulous performer but it was your lack of ability to discern / interpret audible differences that led you to believe vibrations have no audible effects? In other words, is it possible that your great efforts actually led to great results but your lack of listening skills prevented you from realizing it? Have you considered the possibility that you chose the wrong physics books at the student book store? Have you considered the possibility that you don’t know what you’re doing and you’re in the wrong line of work / hobby? Wasn’t it Tesla who said about 100 years ago, “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” I mean, if that was true 100 years ago, isn’t possible to be even more true today? Have you considered the possibility that all of the above might be true?
  12. But it is. Just ask me. I certainly never said a recording can or ever will contain all the info of the live event. But I will say that every last recording contains far more of the live event than you and many currently think. In fact, your playback system is already reading and processing perhaps 100% of the music info embedded in the recording (not the live event). But by the time it reaches your speakers, much of it is completely inaudible. As a result, you and many others think microphones and recordings are simply unable to capture much of the live performance. If you understood that there’s far more music info embedded in every last recording than what we currently hear, that it’s possible to keep audible at the speaker, and how much more musical and engaging that additional music info brings to the presentation, I suspect you’d sell off all your Ambiophonics gear, donate your binaural recordings to charity, settle on Redbook and 2-channel, and use that garage sale money toward a nice used sports car, and enjoy a much more simplified lifestyle.
  13. Yeah, I’d say 60% is a pretty safe conservative estimate. I never claimed to have anything better than you as I do not know you or your work. But it would seem that you inadvertently claimed what I had was substantially better than anything you’ve assembled when you opened that thread a while back and you said that the distortions induced by unwanted vibrations were controversial which I interpret as insignificant or a potential non-issue. What I find interesting is that you seem to wanna be labeled here as some type of vibration mgmt. expert (doesn’t everybody?), yet after all your great time spent studying vibrations, their sources, their behaviors, the distortions they induce, experiments, etc, you walked away seemingly empty-handed. From your perspective, I can absolutely understand why you would think 60% is absurd. But then based on your findings you’d probably think 6 or 7% was also absurd. You wanna see measurements? Answer me this. Do you even know what to measure, much less properly interpret any findings? Is it not true that every electrical wire and internal electrical component vibrates when current is flowing through them? How are you going to measure all that? If we’re talking air-borne vibrations, is not the chassis impacted first by that unwanted energy but then every internal object directly or indirectly impacted secondarily? If we’re talking floor-borne vibrations, wouldn’t that impact be quite similar to air-borne vibrations? Now here I just mentioned yesterday that with my methods I was able to extract perhaps 3 times the performance of my already fabulous Jena Labs line conditioners’ out-of-the-box performance and here you are claiming that the sonic harm induced by unwanted vibrations is controversial at best and near zero at worst. With such diametrically opposed findings would that not make one of us a false prophet? How superior line conditioners work is clearly outside my scope as I just use them and have been since 2000. Jena Labs is the manufacturer and my current models are THE Two. Maybe you should contact Jena Labs directly to let them know how bizarre you think this bi-directional filtering crap is. Even though it seems fairly well known to some that all digital noise is bi-directional including those digital-like distortions from Class D amps even though they are not digital. As former NASA contractors / scientists I’m sure they’d love to get your thoughts. One of them also worked on the Voyager 1 project where many parts of the Voyager 1 were cryogenically treated via the full immersion method and they carried that cryo-treatment into their high-end audio business and have been cryo-treating many of their products for the past 30 years. I’m sure you’ll have some insights to share with them on that subject too. No product to sell. Well, not for the past 8 years anyway. But considering your findings vs my findings on vibrations and perhaps your findings vs Jena Labs’ finding on line conditioners, bi-directional noise, cryo-treating, etc, what exactly is your definition of snake oil? If I should feel the need to use that term, I just wanna make sure I use it in a context that’s understandable.
  14. So you did not write, "your "%" will change as $$ increases"?
  15. I didn't say it like that by any means. I really don't care much what the room acoustics are. Perfect or not. All I care about is whether or not the room is reasonable. By that I'm implying there's reasonable floor coverings, reasonable symmetry, reasonably minimal reflective furnishings/surfaces, and reasonable dimensions. Nothing more, unless I'm forgetting something. But what you seem to be overlooking is my statement about keeping audible at the speaker the volumes of ambient info already embedded in most any given recording. If/when that is achieved, the recording hall's ambient info embedded in the recording and remaining audible at the speaker should in most instances completely overshadow most / all room acoustic anomalies.
×
×
  • Create New...