Atmasphere wrote,
"Such a Red Herring! We don’t even know that such is even true... sheesh."
what you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?
Atmasphere also wrote,
"Anyway, we let George hear the CD (so this was not an analog/digital thing at all) but he couldn’t make the call on that one, despite telling us initially that the room sounded fine other than being the wrong polarity. Can you see the problem?"
I already explained all that.
No answer to my question yet, I duly note.
geoff kait
machina dramatica
|
Back to the question I am now asking for the third (count ’em) time. The real question is is (two is’s in a row) George’s database correct or not? In other words do you have any evidence or even proof that he’s wrong? Forget about analog.
By the way, if you read George’s page more carefully you’ll find some (I think) logic reasoning there that might substantiate the idea that analog (vinyl) and perhaps cassettes as well don’t suffer the inverting polarity nearly to the extent that digital does. In any ace he is arguing that the vinyl counterpart can often be non-inverting whereas the CD version is R. And, he goes on, this difference in polarity between digital and vinyl generally speaking, is a big reason my words why audiophiles frequently prefer analog. Makes sense, no? So here is the relevant paragraph from George’s page:
"It almost goes without saying that the inverted playback of CDs greatly disadvantages them musically when compared to the non-inverted playback of their vinyl record counterparts. It should be noted that the polarity integrity of each element in the chain of a vinyl record’s recording through its playback can be determined without ever listening to it in a manner similar to that described below for digital media, but is much easier to accomplish for vinyl records than for CDs, because a record’s musical content is laid down continuously in its groove, which is fundamentally different from the discontinuous way the digital representation of a CD’s musical content is laid down in its track. Could this be a major reason why many listeners prefer analog to digital?** Sometimes there are additional reasons, that although substantially less significant, might influence some listener’s preference of vinyl records over digital media that you may read about below.*
So, even if you don’t buy into the problem of polarity being as big as George claims, say you think it’s 50% or whatever and perhaps you also don’t particularly care to check the polarity of every single CD and mark it Out Of Polarity like some people I know. Nevertheless, and as unfortunate as this may be, since absolute polarity is also an issue with (some) digital playback electronics, and I know that’s true because I had a CD player that was polarity inverting, unless the True Audiophile has some means to determine if in fact his system is in the correct absolute polarity, then at least 50% of the time he will be hearing the music in Reverse Polarity, no? Furthermore, even if one were to be really stubborn or in denial or whatever and say, Geez, I don’t think any CDs are Reverse Polarity, guess what? In that case ALL CDs will be heard as R since the system with an inverting component in it reverses polarity, so you wind up with the music out of polarity.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.
cheerios,
geoff kait
|
Atmasphere wrote,
"Because of these factors inverting the phase is often not audible. You need a purist recording; everything has to be right in order to hear it. We included the phase inversion switch on our preamps on account of the fact that its a real pain in the rear to reverse the phase at the speaker terminals for each recording!"
I participated in John Curl and Bob Crump’s room a couple times at CES way back at the turn of the century and (of course) the Curl/Crump/Thompson Blowtorch preamp used in the room had a polarity switch. A very expensive one I might add. And Bob brought a lot of his own CDs with him to the show to demonstrate that polarity is audible. Very audible. Also in the room was another audio insider, Clark Johnsen, who, as you probably recall, wrote the book on absolute polarity. The CDs that Bob used for the demo were actually not purist recordings. They were good recordings but not purist recordings. Maybe you need a better polarity switch. ;-)
Clark Johnsen in Positive Feedback:
"For that sorry state of affairs, you can blame the commercial audio press. For whatever reason, hardly a whiff of this vital phenomenon ever appears in those precincts. Ultimate Audio, with two feature articles, became by default an exemplar of polarity awareness—quite so, as ultimate audio cannot be achieved without it! A personal disclaimer: I have often called polarity the sine qua non of correct audio practice. As author of the only book on the topic (The Wood Effect: Unaccounted Contributor to Error and Confusion in Acoustics and Audio, ISBN 0-929383-00-1), which explains everything, I naturally applaud the renewed attention. And I remember how Michael Gindi, an Ultimate Audio contributor, once toured the Stereophile Show chanting, "If you can’t hear the Wood Effect, you can’t hear!" I expect he still stands by that, though nary a peep recently."
geoff kait
machina dynamica |
Map man wrote,
"atmasphere says phase switch may not always be audible. Geoff say it was in certain cases cited."
Funny, nobody has actually been able to point to ANY errors in the Polarity Database. That being the case I suspect we’ll just have to live with 90% of audiophile CD recordings being polarity inverted and press onward. Hell, the phase anomalies in the listening room alone are sufficiently great to swamp a perfect recording, a perfect amp, perfect speakers. Many contented audiophiles are sitting right directly in the middle of a standing wave, anyway. Who’s zooming who?
But getting back to the point of my bringing up polarity in the first place, can Roger’s amp really provide the "live" experience with issues of polarity and compression and room anomalies?
g. kait
machina dynamica |
But that's avoiding the whole question. You're the one who brought it up. Hel-loo! So tell us, what is the quantum mechanics involved. I'm very interested. Seriously. Don't play hard to get. Share, share! If you don't wish to divulge top secret information just talk in code, I'll get it. ;-)
geoff at Machina Dramatica
|
There is no dividing line between classical physics and quantum physics. It kind of is what it is. As I already commented on subject of nanoscale things just because something is very very small doesn’t necessarily mean that quantum physics is involved. That’s why we refer to physics of atom, which I am pretty sure just about everybody considers really really small, as atomic physics, not atomic quantum physics. Now if you were to mention something about the de Broglie limit or perhaps quantum entanglement or even quantum confinement then maybe we would have something quantum to discuss. Are you using artificial atoms? Until then, color me skeptical. Oh, you could also quote some Roger Penrose, you know, the math genius who had some kind of hallucination or epiphany or something and wrote a book, The Emperor's New Mind, in which he addresses Quantum Physics of the Mind. Is that what you’re driving at? Well, that’s different! Lol
geoff kait
MachinaDynamica.com
we do artificial atoms right!
|
Roger wrote,
"geoffkait,
With all due respect - I don’t owe anyone an explanation for anything I do.
You can’t get passed the basics of my concept of constant velocity amplification even after trying 6 different ways to explain it. It obviously will never compute. 700 db doesn’t have to be scary."
I actually understood your argument concerning speed of sound in air. I never said it was impossible or any such thing. Although I can certainly understand your defensive posture, I actually might be the only one who did understand your explanation from what I can tell. Also, just for the record I’m not the one who challenged you on the 700 dB thing. That happens to have been someone else. What I did challenge on was your name dropping of the fancy expression quantum mechanics, which although you continue to use it you have failed rather conspicuously to explain what you mean.
"Here is another fact - you can’t win this argument."
I wouldn’t bet on it. Besides, I’m not really sure you know exactly what argument you have with me. ;-)
"You have a very rigid mindset.
Maybe the tin foil hat is blocking it."
i think you are probably reacting a little defensively. I have been designing quantum mechanical products for years. Besides I’m allergic to tin.
"I sincerely wish you luck."
Back at ya!
geoff kait
machina dynamica
we do artificial atoms right
|
Roger wrote,
"I never applied for jobs at any of those agencies - The DEA, the FBI and the DOD all used "head hunters" to find me and asked for my help based in my spotless reputation for troubleshooting and finding answers where their own people failed."
Well, good for you. By the way that’s how the system works, agencies use head hunters to find people. They are always looking for people to fill slots. They can always use good schedulers or loggies or whatever. That’s the way it’s always been. Geez. Let me remind you that you still owe me some sort of explanation of the quantum physics you constantly refer to, but it looks like you’re going to high tail it out of here before you have a chance. Lol So far you have a spotless reputation for dropping cool sounding physics names like quantum mechanics and cool sounding employers if they’re the sort of thing that turns you on but avoiding any further discussion of what in Tarnation you’re talking about.
Roger wrote,
"I'm done."
Done what? You haven't done anything yet.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
Men Who Stare at Goats
no goats no glory
|
Roger wrote,
"geoffkait,
You are really an ok guy and I would love to tell you what i’m doing that involves (you know what) but nah....
If I did tell you - you would actually agree with me and we would be on the same page.
I think I have said too much already.
I have too much legal stuff going on right now.
I hope you understand."
Oh, I understand, all right. :-)
Looking on the positive side of all of this at least you didn’t say if you told me you’d have to kill me. Good luck with all the legal stuff. Wink wink
Your quantum bro',
Geoff Kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio conceits
|
Wolfman, that’s rather interesting. And right on cue. That’s actually the field I worked in for quite some time. That was 36 years ago. Would you believe Hedy Lamarr (yes, the glamorous actress) was the inventor of spread spectrum communications? You know, WWII. |
Roger wrote,
"Everything is relative."
+1
Discretely,
geoff kait
machina dynamica
masters of time and space
|
geoffkait: "Maybe we need a new lexicon."
To which Roger responded,
"How about real or not real?
Believable or not believable?"
Not bad, but I prefer Hyper Real, Surreal and More Real than Real. Oh, and Unbelievable! or perhaps Un-freaking-believable!
|
Have words lost their meaning? Words and terms like smooth, refined, detailed, wide soundstage, organized soundstage, bass shy, microdynamics, de-interleaved, irritating, tortuous, threadbare, innocuous, harsh, whimpy, congealed, boomy, honky, musical, open, metallic, electronic, wet, liquid, anemic, bland and so forth attempt to describe the sound. But the usual audiophile words have become meaningless or trite. Maybe we need a new lexicon.
|
Somebody forgot a little smiley face at the end of that post? Or did my favorite bleating goat get an atomic wedgie? Have you given any consideration to going back to school, maybe take some, you know, remedial physics?
have a nice day,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica |
Roger wrote,
"How does the inverted polarity dismiss my claim about a stable velocity?"
Actually, it doesn't dismiss your claim about a stable velocity. Score one for Roger.
Cheers
|
I just knew Mopman would ignore that post. Mopman is mopping the floor with me again. He’s fast on the trigger and the mop. Mopman is the Catcher in the Rye for young naive gullible folks just starting out.
Lacking in sincerity? I'm as serious as a colonoscopy without anesthesia.
You can’t persuade someone who’s made up his mind a long time ago. ~ Old audiophile axiom |
Roger wrote,
"But wait - how could I do this without a degree?
The government came to me based on my reputation and "waived" the legal requirement that you must have a degree for that position. They did not care - they knew I was capable of fixing problems that the "college boys" couldn’t figure out."
The Government always waives degrees in lieu of experience. Geez. You’re not the only one who ever worked in Government, in sensitive areas, or on weapon systems, although to be fair it appears you worked on logistics (deployment) or some such thing. You were a scheduler, I take it. Geez, get a swelled head much? Maybe those guards outside your door weren’t there for the reason you believe. Yes, I'm only joking.
geoff kait
machina dramatica |
