[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:26:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
=20
Gary & Scott:

I think that at this point, we may be at cross-purposes. Stereo
(however it is defined after the word alone is written) is a
compromise of many facets, much as an elephant is a mouse to
Government Specifications (both grey, large-eared, bare-tailed
mammals) or a camel is a horse designed by a committee (Camels are
mean beasts, spit further and harder than Llamas, are moody, and not
very cooperative. Racing, riding and war camels are mostly female -
males are bred for size, fighting (each other) and meat). Facets
include recording technique, engineering, mixing, number and
placement of microphones, analog or digital, the venue (an orchestra
recorded in an empty hall with infinite repeats if a mistake is made
will not be the same as a so-called "live" recording), the playback
system(s), how many mechanical steps (just microphone and speaker, or
microphone, cutting lathe, stamped vinyl, stylus, cartridge and
speaker), and much more. And a lot has been learned since the early
days. Keep in mind that early receivers and pre-amps and integrated
amplifiers from some of the more thoughtful manufacturers had
center-channel outputs as early recordings often so 'enhanced' stereo
effects as to make the "dual mono" almost a reality. It was almost
the case where the proverbial left-hand had no knowledge or
interaction with the right.

The average listener has neither the time, treasure or even the
inclination to invest heroic amounts in their listening venue, and
often enough, their entire budget for a playback system is less than
the cost (new) of one pair of my better speakers - and they are
'cheap' relative to what can be spent. To expect that the average
listener/hobbyist, even one quite serious about it, to do so is not
realistic.

Further, should the industry actually attempt to address the issues
raised here head-on using a solution such as Gary describer, they
would, effectively, be putting sound reproduction out of the reach of
all but the most well-heeled.

There are problems with stereo that may be discernible to a few under
special conditions and if a direct comparison to a live performance
is available. Otherwise, if the sound heard is pleasing - that should
be enough, as no amount of brute force or subtle nudging will make
electronic playback the audible equivalent to unreinforced live
performance - especially if the playback venue is not the exact
funcional equivalent of the performance venue.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
=20
Thanks again Peter and Scott -
=20
....and what you say Peter is partially true, but not entirely. What IS a=
=20
shame is the extent to which the bull****ters and maketeers have been abl=
e=20
to take over the industry and sell those well-heeled audiophiles crap tha=
t=20
is either not right or a lie or costs more than it is worth or based on=
=20
wrong technology. Like religious evangelicals these audiophiles will beli=
eve=20
ANYTHING and pay any amount to get good sound.
=20
My speakers cost me about $1500 each to have built, and that doesn't real=
ly=20
repay him for his experience and insights into helping me achieve my goal=
s=20
with them. They are very sophisticated designs even outside the purpose f=
or=20
which they were built, the radiation pattern. In addition to the pattern=
=20
they are built as bi-amped or not, you choose, so that experimenters coul=
d=20
amplify each half independently to vary the gains and see what happens t=
o=20
the sound imaging. That plus there are two pots on top of the speaker to=
=20
vary the ratio between the two front driver faces, to adjust the distance=
/=20
intensity trading to keep the imaging centered as you walk across the roo=
m.=20
That works very well too.Very similar to Mark Davis's Soundfield One.
=20
But what I am about is to explain the problem with traditional stereo the=
ory=20
and try to correct it. Image Model Theory is just a more visual way of=20
looking at the big picture of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and=
=20
room acoustics. You draw the first reflections as additional sources on t=
he=20
other side of the wall and study the patterns of reflected sound that thi=
s=20
technique shows. Then you have to understand stereo as an acoustical=20
process, not a head-related process with two ears, two speakers fooling y=
ou=20
into hearing stereo. At this stage in the history of reproduced sound, we=
=20
should not be making most speakers with all of the drivers on the front a=
nd=20
whatever radiation pattern they put out being accidental rather than=20
designed in. Allison, Toole, Davis, and a few others realize that the rad=
pat=20
should be wide and smooth and the freq response equi-omni in order to get=
=20
the first reflections to have the same response as the actual speakers. B=
ut=20
none of them have studied how the room positioning affects the total imag=
e,=20
or that there needs to be more output to the rear, or what kind of=20
reflectivity you need to set up the total frontal soundstage. In other=20
words, with correct theory on how to put the sound into the room all of t=
hat=20
expensive equipment should not be necessary and we could all be enjoying =
our=20
precious music so much more.
=20
I will try and come up with a paper for the next NY convention. Not sure =
I=20
could transport the sound of my room to a hotel room by bringing the=20
speakers up there, but it would be great if I could do that and it really=
=20
worked well. Anyway, if you get up there look for a paper called "Image=
=20
Model Theory 30 Years On."
=20
Gary

The basic problem with trying to change how stereo works is that you have t=
wo components to stereo, playback and recordings. We can do what we want an=
d try different things with playback. But we can't change the 60+ year host=
ory of stereo recordings and how they were done. And we can't change the fa=
ct that they were done quite differently over the years. There are better w=
ays to create the illusion of realism than conventional stereo recording an=
d playback. The problem is that you exclude all of the great music=20
recorded in stereo over it's 60+ year history. And that ultimately defeats =
the purpose for most of us. So we are stuck with a technology that is all o=
ver the map when it comes to source material and all over the map when it c=
omes to finding our most prefered way to play that source material back. Yo=
u have found your favorite solution and I have found mine and they are quit=
e different. But there is no objective right or wrong here. It is about pre=
ferences and what one finds the most pleasing.