Holographic imaging

The topic of distortion perception is a fascinating one. In my opinion, it makes sense to focus on those distortions that are subjectively objectionable, but not worry about those that are of no audible consequence.

At this point I'm completely unconvinced by Roger Paul's claims. I do not believe that frequency can be modulated by modulating intensity in an electronic circuit. And if such modulation is occuring on a low-level scale, I do not believe that it is of any audible significance. Based on some of Roger Paul's examples, I think it would be obscured by a well-established characteristic of human hearing called "masking". Briefly, masking refers to the ear's tendency to completely ignore a low-level signal that is close in frequency to a simultaneous high-level signal.

If Roger Paul is dealing with changes in gain of 1/100th of a dB or less (as he claims), then any hypothetical doppler-type frequency-bending (which I do not believe takes place) would be completely ignored by the ear.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer

Roger Paul wrote:

"...[T]he ear/brain system is a highly sophisticated mechanism for discerning the physical location of a sound object when you include the massive ability to detect phase/time relationships that are on a scale so small as to be unbelievable."

Yes the ear/brain system is highly sophisticated, but it is believable and to a large extent its characteristics are understandable. I highly recommend Jens Blauert's text, "Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization".

RP again: "IOW if you can feed your brain the raw data at Mach One – the listener will have the same acoustic sensation as someone who was actually present during the initial recording."

I am unaware of any sound system which transmits through air that is capable of feeding your brain raw data at any speed other than Mach One.

At this point, I am also unaware of any scientific evidence for the problems you claim to be solving.

It is starting to look like you have created imaginary problems so that you can come to our rescue with imaginary solutions.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer

Roger, of course I agree that things happen in between the microphone and the loudspeakers that alter the perception of the recording - some intentional, and some not.

Aside from your assertions, I do not know of a single source that ascribes any perceptible alteration of the signal to doppler distortion in amplifiers. Based on your description of this distortion, and published psychoacoustic research on human hearing characteristics, I do not believe the distortion you propose would be audible even if it did exist.

Duke
dealer/manuacturer

Pubul57, your observation regarding holography and dynamics in live vs reproduced music is right on the money.

Years ago one of Stereophile's writer offered some perspective that I think is worth passing along, only I can't find the exact quote. But it went something like this:

"I am not so much interested in WHERE the musicians are on the stage as I am in WHY they are on the stage."

Duke

Tbg wrote: "Pubul57 and Audiokinesis, I refuse to concede that reproduced music should be allowed to differ from real..."

AudioKinesis responds: Kindly refrain from making "straw man" arguments. That's where you attribute to the other person something that he did not actually say, and then argue against it.

Tbg, I can see now how you misunderstood me.

Holographic localization of sound sources is not part of live music under most circumstances, but natural timbre and dynamics certainly are. Now I have nothing against holographic imaging, but it has never been part of my experience of "real music", so like the Stereophile writer I do not give it equal priority with other things like natural timbre and dynamics.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer