Roger,
Maybe, but I'm not trying to sell anybody anything so I'm the only one who has to live with my crap.
Also, your innovation is a lot more expensive than my crap and what my crap does and how it does it is well documented by the vendors so you can take it or leave it for what it is. |
This holography stuff is starting to scare me.
I think I'll just go 2-d. |
"Perhaps it'd be best to just sell the H-Cat without trying to attribute it's effectiveness to an unverifiable theory..."
Ignorance is bliss if it sounds good. |
Roger,
In the end, rhe proof is always in the hearing....
Cheers! |
"How do you correct and compensate for something that you can not measure????? It would seem to me that a circuit smart enough to compensate for these so call velocity, I mean "Doppler Effect" errors would need some sort of a "sense" circuit with predefined threshold triggers....."
Bingo! |
The only additional processing I use these days is DBX for dynamic range enhancement on oocasion. When I use it, I believe its generally due to dynamic range deficiencies in the recording compared to live sound rather than anything missing with my equipment.
I also added a tube DAC recently and would agree that it does add to the system's natural "holography". |
Carlos269,
Very well said. Bravo! |
SO will the H-cat gear be on display at the RMAF?
Seems like that would greatly help present the case based at least on relative sonic merit if not technical details. |
No recording will ever capture the same spatial cues and no system will ever present them to you equivalently as occurred when your ears registered them live. So I believe its a pipe dream to think that any system is doing this accurately.
Given this, I believe its each person's choice regarding how they prefer the musical image to be presented to them, holographically or otherwise. Choose your technology and resulting distortions of preference...in the end its our individual perceptions and opinions that makes the real difference in regards to musical enjoyment or no. |
Tbg,
I know I'm right in regards to reproducing what a person hears at a live performance. The way most recordings are miked, the geometry involved in detecting sound is different than that involved with human ears, I think that is a fact.
A system should have a good chance of reproducing to some degree of accuracy what the mikes actually picked up though, spatial cues included. That is the best you can hope for.
When you hear holography on a system for whatever technical reason, it is the perspective of the microphones that is being reproduced and this is always different than the perspective of the ears. That is a geometric fact I believe. |
"Don't think for a second that the system is going to sound like the hall- it isn't. It **can** sound, and very convincingly, like your listening room is grafted onto a space (which might be a hall) wherein the music is happening. "
Another great point by Atmasphere.
This is very doable. This is what I tend to shoot for with my system in order to be fully satisfied with what I hear. |
"Not in my experience when using very good digital equipment; however, at the lower end of the price scale, say under #1000 per component, then analog tends to trump digital in almost every respect."
I've found recently adding a <$1000 tube DAC (mhdt Paradisea in my case)can help provide more of the common benefits mentioned that many associate with a more analog sound with digital source media.
I'm finding this to be true regardless of whether the source is a Wifi networked PC music server or a $600 CD player/recorder in my case.
How the DAC does its thing to produce the intended sound seems to be of more importance than the digital nature of the source. |
"I totally agree with this, but didn't think that it could be done for under $1000."
I'm not sure how much it must cost to get a particular sound, but I would say with certainty that $1000 spent on a good DAC that you can feed somehow from any decent digital source will probably get you a good bit further than $1000 spent on a complete CD player. |
|
Pubul57,
This is getting a bit off topic, but...
What jitter sounds like, if present, and whether it matters to an extent that is significant is a very nebulous thing still to me.
I think the only way to conclusively know how two different digital sources sound through a particular DAC and whether there is a difference that matters, is to compare and listen and share your findings.
Listen with a reference source first then another source for comparison and see if a difference can be detected.
So far, in my case both Denon player and Roku Soundbridge sound more alike than different running through the same DAC. Both sound way different and I think better as well to me now running through the tubed DAC than they did running through their own built in native DACS prior. Also prior, through each units own internal DAC, each sounded very different, particularly in regard to dynamics. |
I don't know if we're there yet categorically but I am of the opinion that there is no good technical reason I know of why it should be a big problem these days.
My ears may not be the gold standard, but in general I am not hearing sound issues with digital sources that I can clearly attribute to jitter.
Poor or at least flawed recordings seem to be the culprit in most every case where I hear clear deficiencies IMO, and this has been getting better over time as well. |
Nilthepill,
VEry cool. I have a couple Mapleshade recordings. Didn't realize the miking techniques used. I'll have to give a few fresh listens. |
"Still, IMHO, a good transport can add a significant performance increment to a good DAC, but the DAC is relatively more important by several orders of magnitude."
I would tend to agree.
I don't think the Corvette/Pinto analogy holds well in this case. |
