Hi folks, is the so called holographic imaging with many tube amplifiers an artifact? With solid state one only hears "holographic imaging" if that is in the recording, but with many tube amps you can hear it all the time. So solid state fails in this department? Or are those tube amps not telling the truth?
To get one thing clear: I am not a measurement guy.That should have been clear from my post above and as Atmasphere has pointed out, this is not a debate between measurements and ear, between "subjective" and " objective ". What I meant by "current scientific terms " I could also put less politely by saying that Ralph's arguments to me seem logical and to me make sense, whereas I must say that I find Rogers' reasoning shifty, contradictory and lacking in stringency and logic. As far as I am concerned, this does not necessarily inspire confidence. On the other hand however, even if Rogers reasoning may not be up to standard, this does not mean, that he is not up to something valid. Only his way of explaining and "selling" it would hardly convince a critical mind, not even one belonging to a good willed person. Again, as also Pubul57 so rightly suggests, the proof lies in the listening and Goldeneraguy, yes indeed, I wish we could turn to other things of interest and I'll try to make this my last statement in this matter.
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.
I would like to make one more point if I can and then I think I will pretty much give up. I am not trying force my opinion or concepts on anyone. I do think that If there was perhaps a more proper way to “explain” it that we would all be on the same page. Take this example –
You are in a room filled with people at a party. You are having a conversation with someone right in front of you. Now you decide to listen in on another conversation (eavesdrop) that is taking place off to the side of you and is several feet away. Without turning your head -you pick up on everything they are saying and all during this time you have missed anything said to you by the person right in front of you. As soon as you turn your “attention” back to your partner – you can no longer eavesdrop on the other conversation. Why is that? And how is it that you can turn your “attention” without turning your head?
Here is how this works. Your ears are fed by streaming acoustic energy that has many properties but there are really only two critical properties. One represents the raw acoustic data such as the changes in air pressure that represent the “sound” made by an object. The second is the differential phase caused by the separate arrival times of this raw data to your two ears. Of course if you are looking directly at the sound object – the arrival times will be identical (null). If you turn your head to the right then your left ear is slightly closer to the sound object and therefore the raw data arrives there first. The difference in arrival times will provide the brain with a specific idea (like a global positioning system) as to the physical location of that sound source. None of this should come as news to anyone that understands the basics of how we hear.
Here are two ways to hear the “other” conversation. One would be to turn your head toward the direction of the physical location until you are looking directly at them. At which time your head and your attention is fixed on them. It is also a time that your brain has chosen to lock onto raw data that has the same arrival times. If it does not have the same arrival times then the brain will reject or filter out differential arrival times thus ignoring other sounds as not important or of interest.
The second way of hearing the “other” conversation is to keep your head straight ahead as if you were still involved in your primary conversation – but allowing your brain to “scan” for raw data that is arriving at increasingly longer differential times until what you hear is of interest. At this point you are willingly latching onto this specific delay in arrival times as important and rejecting arrival times from other sources including right in front of you. You have become internally phase locked to an outside physical location.
Even if you briefly turn your head directly toward them and back to straight ahead. – your brain will easily compensate for the rotation of your head keeping the phase lock in place.
The moment your partner snaps your attention back to him your lock on the differential times is broken and you default back to the same arrival times. The other conversation is now suppressed by the brains ability to filter and select what it hears.
It can be seen from this that the 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.
There is one very important factor that has everything to do with this human gift. And it is something we rely on heavily. Sound travels at Mach one through the medium of air. It is a constant. It does not vary. This is the one ingredient or component of the larger formula used by the brain to accurately pinpoint a sound object. If you tamper with the velocity of the medium you can confuse the brain about what it thinks is the precise location of an object. In fact the brain is smarter than that and can recognize the instability of the medium to maintain a fixed velocity and immediately “knows” this is fake. In real life the speed or velocity of sound is virtually written in stone. (Ignoring long term changes in temperature, humidity etc.)
My circuitry is designed to provide a velocity-stabilized amplifier that is more in tune with the type of stability you expect to find in air. The closer you come to the stability of Mach One – the more your brain accepts the notion that your are in the same room with these people. 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. H-CAT is a method of metering the output velocity so as to allow the brain to work in a familiar stable environment. The brain begins to trust what it hears as first hand and not a poor attempt to recreate a sound event riddled with phase errors.
The bottom line is that your audio system must play to your brain – not your test equipment.
All I know is that when I hear something or many things, I am hearing them all at the same time. The brain can distinguish between the time arrival between the ears, but if only one ear is working, it cannot distiguish from how far away a sound originates, since the sound waves detected by the ear are simultaneous. Bob P.
The bottom line is that your audio system must play to your brain – not your test equipment. Roger, That is not the point of the argument. Besides any properly set up rig with decently designed equipment, will do just what you describe or do you seriously maintain, that most of the gear we have at home is but " a poor attempt to recreate a sound event riddled with phase errors" ? Forgive me, if I laugh.
Roger, please don't argue about the speed of sound OK? If you have heat, air conditioning, humidity control or lack of it, weather, what not- the speed of sound will change. You cannot ascribe that as a constant; it is constantly changing.
Phase relationships are maintained through having bandwidth. You got bandwidth, you got imaging. Try turning off the tweeters sometime and see what happens.
Detlof, forgive me if I laugh, you think every decently designed equipment sounds the same? If not what is the difference? Also, please tell me how you know "decently designed equipment?" Do you look at it, trust the designer, or listen to it?
"...[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.
I wonder if others that have auditioned or own a H-cat agree with the statements by Roger. Also Tbg please re-read Atmasphere and Detlof's last posts cause you just didn't get it. Or is it that you didn't want to.
Solution to this never ending debate is to send some demo units to select few volunteers and have them report back? I suggest few qualified individuals- like Atmasphere (Ralph can do even some tests) Detlof, Duke, ??
This had started out as a pretty interesting discussion on, what was it, Holographic Imaging. I thought it was pretty interesting until it turned into a sort of flame for all. I keep away from the other forums due to all the attacking, flaming, etc. I had always thought audiogon was above that.
You have an artist playing a guitar in a studio – the sound vibrations from the stings are traveling away from the guitar toward the microphone through the medium of AIR. The velocity of travel is for this segment is Mach One.
Fast forward way ahead to your listening room. The sound vibrations manifested by your loudspeaker travel from the speaker across your listening room to your ears. This segment is also traveling at Mach One.
In-between the two AIR segments is a segment of electronics including storage that is presented in series to form a three-part chain of events. Don’t forget that what is stored in the recording is the sound of the guitar as heard through the medium of AIR. If there are any minor changes to the velocity/phase of the electrical segment – they will be manifested in the final sound of the system and assumed to be part of the recording.
For example if you add digital delay or reverb to the electrical segment – the net result is a feeling by the listener that the guitar is “obviously” in a big hall. (when in fact it was done in a quiet studio).
The real point to this is accepting the fact that any modification to the electrical segment gives the listener an impression about the RECORDING – not the system. After all if you purposely tamper with the electronic segment to “create” an artificial feeling about the recording – say like Carver – then why wouldn’t the reverse be true as well? Meaning that your impression about the recording can be altered by inadvertent and unintentional problems with phase in the electrical segment including velocity errors that give the impression of motion when there was none. The artificial motion impressed upon the guitar can be as simple as bloating, out of focus or larger than life physical size. The removal of these minor phase errors reduces the motion and stabilizes the pin point location back to what you would expect if you were there.
Goldeneraguy, I reread Detlof's and Atmasphere's last posts, I didn't miss what they were saying. I know of nine others who are thrilled with their H-Cat line stages. I know of two others who have heard the H-Cat amp, both dealers, who love it and have had great response to their demonstrations. I don't know what you mean by agreeing with statements by Roger, but one guy who is strongly dismissive of most posts here, says that he now better understands why it sounds so good. Again this makes my point that it is the sound that attracts people, not the explanation of why it does what it does.
I am a survivor of many of the scam police wars. I could give a shit whether people need to have the benefits of tweaks or components "proven" to them. This is the height of hubris IMHO. If they refuse to try it themselves, screw them. I will just keep enjoying the benefits.
Tbg , I did not read one post here that states that H-cat products do not sound good,great or bad for that matter. The argument is to Roger Paul's claim and your defense as to why it sounds good.More knowledgeable people then I state their doubts and have questions that he has failed to explain. I believe you are a professor at A&M.Would you teach that something "IS" just because someone says it is? I dont know why this fight continues.I would love to have your setup. I'm sure it gives you total enjoyment.I just dont accept the Doppler Effect
I am one of the nine who is thrilled with my H-Cat line stage. I don't care if I completely understand every technical nuance of its theory and execution. It sounds fantastic and that's all I need. I let Roger sweat all the details while I enjoy the music.....Can't wait for my amp to arrive
Ah - the rationale shifts. Last time I looked it was about physics - i.e. doppler shift. Now we have moved up in alphabetical order to physiology - how humans percieve sound due to the structure bilateral nature of our ears. What a compelling argument. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Goldeneraguy, Roger's design is in my opinion far superior to anything I have ever heard. I don't teach students what audio to buy but rather teach what research shows. I am not in the science of amplifier circuits and know none posting here are either. I don't know how Roger conceived of this Doppler correction circuit or even why it has so improved over time, but I do know it has.
He is proud of what he has accomplished and the proof that it works. He is honestly trying to convey his thinking which underlies his circuit. I have told him that those who demand an explanation based on currently accepted terminology are not interested in sound, so he should not bother with them. None seem capable of defending their personal amps or those they make. But they demand it of Roger and he foolishly responds.
This is a great amp.
Tvad, I probably started the slide by suggesting that electronics can contribute to holographic imaging. That brought the usual response from you know who. I think Roger was merely trying again to explain his ideas. He is too sincere and insufficiently dismissive of ignorant responses for his own good.
I only ever said that it sounded outstanding. Some did ask why and I gave a response limited to my understanding even though for me it did not matter.
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.
Gobbledygook abounds here. Both from the scientific and "academic" communities.
Consider the sources folks.
Remember those who can, do. And those who can't, teach.
Do a posting history on the "academic" source and you'll understand. It is replete with flavor of the month products that have gone by the wayside long ago. Please read it; his track record speaks for itself.
I hope you don't mind, after my fit of laughter has passed, that I poke my nose once more into the door, before shutting it finally tight:
In reading Rogers texts carefully, and I have been trained to do so and have used this training in all of my professional life, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his sincerity. Roger truly believes that he is up to something valid and he very well may be. Possibly he is one of those people, who out of intuition have come across something which is valid and valuable but- as is the case with all intuitive findings - they cannot at first explain in reasonable terms. This generally causes wrinkled brows from the mainstream, who - especially if they are interested and curious - want some sort of proof and if they don't get to their satisfaction the originator will get flak. The history of scientific progress is full of such cases and if we have one of those here, well, as I have said right from the beginning, the proof lies in the listening. Thre is another thing typical in the unfolding of our discussion here: Originators who seem to have something new in the sense of a break-through - and it does not matter in what field of human endevour this may happen - generally have supporters,disciples, prophets if you like, who are out to find proselytes for their cause. They are usually much more fervent, glowing, emotional in defending the cause than its originator. These people will easily join battle with emotions flying high and because of this fact, rationality, the careful considering of the "disbelievers" argument is neglected. Case in point here: This has never been an argument of measurement *against* sound, rather an argument of measurement *for* sound, which has suddenly been twisted from the latter into the former, which it never was, neither in Duke's nor Atmasphere's posts. Both gentlemen, as most of us here, are very well aware of the fact, that good measurements do not guarantee good sound. So before things get more ugly and distorted, I think we should stop and ponder what we are doing here and I certainly do not take my own person out of this equation. I suggest we stop right here. Norm's efforts do not seem to satisfy the skeptics, he might even do Roger's cause a disservice. On the other hand, I find Nil's suggestion great, that Roger would give a loan of his gear to a carefully considered neutral person who then could report back to us. Again let us stop here, and that certainly goes also for myself, before it gets more ugly, irrational and out of joint. Just my final 2 cents.
Apart from Audiofool's usual nonsense, the key issue here is explanations for why some components sound better than others. Electrical engineering has some concepts that can be used in such explanations based on age old science. In science our understanding advances from observation and experiments centered often on assessing hypotheses. In engineering you apply the relationships that have been supported by science.
All of this is of little import for making decisions on buying equipment. If someone finds the equipment of a designer to sound good, let her buy it. For the engineer designing an amp, there are many considerations to weigh. The very best parts in a classic circuit may sound wonderful but be unaffordable. The designer optimizes the known parameters as he sees fit. This is not science; it is the use of science.
Since designers here have attacked Roger Paul, using what Detlof calls "currently terminology" saying that they don't find his attempt to explain how his circuit works. One would think that they could defend why theirs does, but they have not.
All of this is irrelevant, if your focus is on the observation that this amp and linestage sound extraordinary. Something must explain this. I merely suggested that people hear it. If they don't like it I would be shocked, but that is their business, not mine.
I don't care two figs whether they can accept what Roger says because I know full well that their understanding of what makes for a good sounding circuit is limited by our understanding of nature's principles. With time we will further understand these principles, but regardless, Roger has found a circuit that works.
I have, of course, said this several times, and so I need not say them any more.
Roger, Maybe I gave you too much credit in saying that you had implemented a Multi-Tap Processor circuit in your products.
Your theories, analogies and explanations have left me wondering what your academic credentials are.
I believe that Norm possesses a minor in Physics and how a person like that, trained in logical and scientific thinking can swallow your convoluted and non-factual theories and descriptions is beyond me.
It also leads me to wonder what you actually pot in those encapsulated modules?????????
Has a CAT preamp with the latest "Doppler Detectors" and "Velocity Correction" circuits been submitted to Stereophile for review? I really would like to see John Atkinson's measurements on this unit.
I'm curious to see if the "WTC" control actually does anything or like some claim "it does nothing at all". BUT I will not be dropping any of my money on your products after the ABSURD stands you have taken and the way you have presented your theory, logic and their lack of scientific basis in the exchanges here.
I almost feel bad for your customers who have dropped their money on your product only to read the quality, validity and lack of foundation of your responses here. Most of us want to substatiate the quality of our components on more solid grounds than just faith alone. A designer should be able to address his design and design choices or say nothing at all if he wishes. It is one thing to be vague but what you have done on this thread is something else!
If I were you, I would stop now, as with each of the exchanges here you lose more and more credibility!
Tbg.A long time ago I told a friend not to argue with someone who wont listen.Today I will heed my own advice. I must say that you continually change or do not understand the words of others.This may be the result of to much Doppler.
Carlos269, one of my undergraduate majors was Physics, but my Ph.D. is in political science.
I would urge you to listen to the H-Cat if you have a chance and would welcome you were you to come by.
Roger is very sincere guy and has come about a circuit that works, although it has been evolving the last six years. Although I have known Roger since the early 70s, it was only about six years ago that I learned he was back in audio. I agreed to give a listen to his new line stage. I was impressed and bought it. Relative to the unit I have today, it could not compete although it got TAS' Golden Ear award. There was an amp even then but only a very few were made. A production version of an exceptional amp is only recently available. If the line stage is very, very good, the amp is unbelievable and renders the goal of his electronics, a holographic sound stage.
Over the years Roger has repeatedly attempted to tell me how this was accomplished. Since the product sounded so good, I put little stake in my understanding about what was going on. Remember that Roger's innovation is his claim to fame. He does want to answer question, but not to divulge proprietary information.
I had an early linestage with no WTC, but although I wish it were automatic like self-focusing cameras, I cannot live without what I get when it is on the money, especially now that I have the amp. This experience is why I initially posted here and only to suggest that people give a listen to H-Cat.
I have no investment in his company nor have I ever profited from selling either the line stage or the amp, although I think I strongly influenced many to buy one.
H-Cat is not a scam, although I do know of people who did not like it or perhaps who would not deal with the WTC or Roger's suggestions about grounding only the line stage.
Publul57, it maybe that Lotus Group will have the P-12R X7 line stage. The local dealer who did demonstrations last year is now in China, I think.
Goldeneraguy, I suggest that you have chosen a correct path.
Norm, I'm not passing any judgment on the H-CAT. I have not even seen nor heard one. It may well be the great sound reproducer that you attest to. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have used Multi-Tap Delay circuits to good effect and results in my own system. Based on everything that Roger has said, it lead me to believe that he may be using this process but then again he may not.
My only issue here is the lack of foundation in his theory, hypothesis and attempts at technical communication on Rogers part.
If you like what you hear from his equipment than more power to you. To each his own and at the end of the day it is one's (the product owner)ears which are the final test and judge.
Keep enjoy it. I will try to listen to his gear if given a chance. Maybe Roger is just not an eloquent communicator, who knows, but these exchanges do not reflect well on his technical soundness.
Carlos269, have you ever heard an instance where are product is well defended in terms of theory or science? Since most merely revise old circuits with better parts or bells and whistles, what can they say?
Norm, I agree with you that 95% of the High-End product have a hard time justifying their cost but I would venture to say that a good 70% of them are technically sound and can be defended in terms of theory and science.
An amplifier circuit is as you say nothing new either in tube or solid-state form but it either works or it doesn't. In other words, it either does what it claims, amplifies, or it doesn't. A Preamplifier has to by definition switch between inputs and adjust gain or it does not do its job.
But when it comes to tweaks, cables, power conditioning to a certain extent, isolation devices and so on; I whole heartily agree with you that most of the claims are unfounded and are faith driven.
Remember the title of my upcoming book: "The Great Audiophile Swindle!"?
I recently read a review where the reviewer says: "yes, like many other audiophools, I have a bad tendency to equate price with performance"
Audiophiles for the most part are gullible and will take these faith based products at face value. The ear is a powerful tool but it can be misguiding as what may sound neutral and true to the original to me may not be true to you nor anyone else on this forum.
This subject fascinates me as we are all after that "Absolute Sound" and spend thousands of dollars trying to achieve it. But in reality their is no such thing as we were never present at the original performance to base it on and compare it to; and even if we were all there we would all hear a slightly different account of the performance. The "absolute sound" that we all seek is a VERY personal thing that only makes a one-to-one connection and that is to ones self by ones self.
I could go on and on but I wont. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, ONLY you have to be able to live with what you have purchased and it sound like you and I and the rest of the people on this forum have; but don't expect the H-CAT to be the cats meow to everyone else.
My only problem with Roger is his lack of technical foundation, and when he does try to get technical he makes some outlandish claims.
Norm do you happen to know Roger Paul's academic credentials?
Tbg, some more things to point out. I've been careful not to say anything about how any of these products sound. I have only offered personal experience on what causes imaging. As far as the H-Cat goes, I'm only concerned with the explanation, not the end result.
Here is an insight. Life is. It does not care what we think of it, it simply is. Humans usually exist as reason and meaning making machines. We attach reasons and meanings to everything. In fact, we are generating stories all the time (reasons, interpretations, beliefs, etc.) about life. This is not a problem so long as we are aware of it, but when we try to live our lives as if our made-up stories are real, anywhere where life disagrees will be a source of suffering.
for more info see http://www.landmarkeducation.com -if any of this resonates with you, do not hesitate and take the class called the Landmark Forum.
My feeling through this whole thing is that Roger latched on to a 'story' or 'reason' (I use that word since he concedes that he never tried to prove or disprove its reality) to justify his actions regarding his 'phenomena'. That is not to say that whatever he's *doing* does not work, but the 'reason' does not hold water. It is a matter of **profound luck** that he has success (if you are to be believed), this bit of 'profound luck' (and contradictory explanations) led me to Occam's Razor- I doubt its coincidence, I doubt its luck and think there is a simpler explanation.
There are many products well defended by theory and science. In that conversation, I would be careful about assuming that just because that is so, that that product is a mere rehashing of old circuits. For example, we built the first fully-differential balanced preamps, which were also the first to have a direct-coupled balanced output. That's not exactly a rehash... I can point to some other examples, like the Messenger, that are not rehashed either, and they are all supported by theory and science.
To answer your previous question, yes, bandwidth is what you need for imaging. Imaging is reliant more on bandwidth than any other 'phenomena' in audio. Naturally low distortion is helpful to improve detail, but you can have quite a lot of distortion and imaging will still occur as long as there is good bandwidth. If you think Roger's design has good imaging, if you check you will find it also has good bandwidth (well beyond 20-20KHz). This happens to be one of those things that is audible and measurable. Anytime **those two** coincide, you've got something that is real.
Atmasphere, while I understand what you are saying, my concern is with the sound not the explanation. As I have said, I didn't buy the line stage until I heard it. I did buy the amp before hearing it and did wait a long time for it to satisfy Roger and have it shipped. I can assure you that whatever he is doing is greatly improving over time.
I have had at least 30 different line stages or preamps in my 45 years in audio. After a certain period where I experimented with solid state line stages and amps, I went fully tube and presently have about 2000 tubes. I think I had the ARC Reference and the Exemplar parafeed linestage at the time I got the H-Cat. There were many things that the H-Cat could not equal, especially in the Exemplar, but man could it image. And instruments and vocalists were actual size. I did not have vocalists with five feet wide mouths.
Gradually, a purity of sound emerged also, with it sounding neither like a tube or a SS product. The real shock for me came with the amp. Even straight out of the box and just turned on, it was different. The top end had such scene and extension but quite sweet. Roger was expecting me to rave immediately, but it was two weeks later when it just became impossibly good.
So you can see what guides me-sonic realism. This has to have some explanation, but I know from my experiences with science that many explanations are wrong. But Roger had something directing him. His amps of 25 years ago were quite good, but never like this one.
If so many had rushed to judgment that H-Cat was a fraud, I think you would find that Roger knows more about circuits than you think and has sought to measure what he is getting by leasing the best testing equipment despite his meager resources. As I said to Carlos, you need to realize that the H-Cat could probably be copied.
Norm there are a number of ways to enhance the spatial image and its dimensionality. BUT according to Roger Paul he's not processing the signal in any way other than purely amplifying it. He claims no processing nor signal manipulation!.....So what does the H-CAT "WTC" controller actually do? That is the crux of the matter and so far Roger has not been able to address that with any type of factual response.
Spatial processing is an area of interest to me and I have well over 40 type of processors (both analog and digital) that are designed to enhance spatial cues; but they are and do not claim to be anything other than "audio processors". I'm actually able to manipulate the stereo image as I wish in either the digital or analog domain with these processors to obtain my desired effect.
Roger Paul claims to be able to correct "Velocity Errors" captured by his "Doppler Detectors" and claims to do all this in the classic straight-wire with gain approach; so we go back to the WTC...
Let me ask you a series of questions that will shed some insight into the H-CAT (at least for me):
1. Does it have great dynamic range or does the volume/spl of the presentation seem to stay on an average level?
2. When you play the "soundstage" track (track # 10) on the Stereophile Test CD#2 where the person is clapping from one side wall (one edge of the stage) to the other and then from the far wall all the way back up the stage (Piano), does the sound presentation follow the diagram and the description on the CD booklet of what took place? Or does most of the sound appear to originate from the middle?
Give me the answers to those two questions as they may shed some insight into what "non-process" he's using.
Others on this forum and on Audioasylum have claimed that adjusting the WTC controller has no effect so it makes me wonder if this is 100% a placebo effect.
Whatever is potted in those encapsulated components is either manipulating and enhancing the spatial image as you claim or is not doing anything as Roger Paul claims.
Carlos269, when you are on the right spot, it does sound louder. It is not placebo. I have had six different people here who always got to the same value while I changed the WTC. What you hear is a place where the soundstage suddenly becomes vivid and real. The bass is tight and deep, the attack sharp, and the top end sharp and sweet.
I will have to see if I even have the Stereophile Test cd#2. Is that the one with the garage door? I just checked. I only have the Test cd, not #2.
I suspect that those not hearing it have units that are not broken in, but I cannot understand why some cannot hear polarity differences. I have had that happen even in my highly revealing system.
Man, I was just looking at your "system." Is that your listening room or a storage area? I cannot believe that much of this stuff is connected; is it?
Carlos, I know there have been many attempts to "enhance" imagining. IMHO all are disasters and there are none in my system.
Also while I find power cords to be quite important with some being outstanding, IMHO I cannot stand any ac isolation transformer, regenerator, balance power unit, or ac filter. I use only the Acoustic Revive RTP-6 plug in strip with an IsoClean wall outlet on one dedicated line.
I also have found the Halcyonics active isolation base to far exceed any other isolation component. The Acapella Silencio base is pretty good. Since I can only afford three Halcyonics, I have to use them under my digital and vinyl sources and the other under my amp. It may be that my ac purity and magic isolation allows me to hear benefits from the H-Cat that are denied others.
Hello, I wonder if it is changing the speakers or even the preamps electrical dampning or its"Q". Therefore affecting the tightness of the sound and its affect on the rooms acoustics. Think of the Marchand Bassis. Bob
Audiofool, I am sorry that you have never listened to any H-Cat product and never followed through on seeking to become a dealer. I really don't understand your mindless criticisms for something you haven't heard and apparently don't want to hear, but that is your business.
Mapman, Joe Cohen of Lotus Group, who is a dealer for H-Cat, had the prototype of the H-Cat amp but had an AM station coming through that was volume sensitive so he will probably have the line stage but will not have the amp. Roger cannot afford to have a room at the RMAF and his dealer in the Denver area, who did demonstrations last year, is now in China.
It would be very nice to give many the opportunity to hear the combination, especially with the outstanding Feastrex speakers.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
