drdna wrote:

For stereo systems, we start with two small microphones with strictly limited ability to capture an acoustic musical event at a particular combination of phases, reflections, amplitudes, etc. in a relatively low-level voltage situation….

I very much disagree with this premise, in fact in my view it is a fundamentally erroneous premise. Many people (most of audio people) use the very same wrong assumption and it is quote bad. The same Vasyachkin at his site said:

“The signal chain has so many links in it - performer, instrument, microphone, A/D converter, equalizer/mixer/reverb/compressor/mastering engineer, D/A converter, amplifier, crossover, loudspeaker, cabinet, room, head transfer function, ear, brain ( to name a few ) that if you think you have it all figured out you are an idiot.”

What Vasyachkin said is also the manifestation of the very same and very essential erroneous premise as “drdna” proposed. Performer with his instrument and microphone is not the sores of “event”…

This wekk I am reading a DPoLS-related paper of a gentleman who said:

“Whereas replicating the original experiment – the singular musical experience - is clearly impossible, i.e. the problem structure is too complex, the play-back system should be able to replicate the degree of accuracy in the information processing by the recording-studio. Everything additional – I mean more resolving - is unnecessary and therefore worthless.”

The same mistake – the replicating the original experiment of what? The acoustic snapshot  of the performing space is something that defile musically in it’s entirety? Absolutely not!!!

A few years back Lechnitsky wrote a book about the new way playback systems assessment what he recognized a performing event as a “begin of the file” for a playback-made Claude  Shannon's communication bridge. Lechnitsky used the very same wrong premises.

Those all mistaken premises are the nectars from the same poison flowers: literally - a sonic event in performing avenue is NOT where “audio” starts.  I do not want to go into further explanations at this thread. In this thread Vasyachkin is bitching about anything and about nothing I would let him to do whatever he wants: this thread already annoys me: it all has no relation to horn-loaded ribbons and, in fact I have no idea what it is all about. Sometimes in future I would need to start a thread dedicated to the subject “Where audio communication chain starts” as I feel that audio people generally have very narrow view on this matter.

Paul S wrote:

By far the most promising planar speakers I've heard have been the giant Sound Lab models.  These use an assortment of variously-sized "tuned" planes comprising one larger, "curved" plane.  However, for whatever reason or reasons, I never heard them get free of their amplification, meaning the sound/qualities of the amps always played a big part in the sound that came from these speakers.  Nor did I ever hear them get free in the dynamic sense, but they always seemed dynamically "tied" to the amps, as if holding or being held back.  Lastly, like other planars, they lacked the "good granularity"/traction that "propells" music dynamically. Paul S

Vasyachkin wrote :

"...my concern is designing a system that is maximally logical - one that most pure from the standpoint of engineering. your concern is a system that simply WORKS regardless of how it does it..."

Try this : Take a Williams pear and eat it with some Roquefort cheese; then post your findings.

Fantastic no?

After the fact, we can of course use logic to analyze why it "works", but all the chemistry and logic in the world would not have lead one to suspect that such a magnificent result might lie in the combining of these two ingredients... Nor was this discovery the result of trial and error; it was rather a case of listening to one's intuition, understanding the objective, and having yes, some "technical" knowledge allowing him to get there.

Here is something I came across while looking for another quote :

G. K. Chesterton (English writer) wrote :
"...One can only find the truth via logic if one has first found truth without logic..."

jd*

PS : I'm serious ; Try the pear + Roquefort, and all we be clear!
(Société brand Roquefort is available in the U.S... Do not try substituting blue cheese)

...Is there gas in the car?
Yes, there's gas in the car
I think the people down the hall know who you are...

Vasyachkin wrote:

… understanding for me is as important, and probably more important than results.

In such case it is no surprise that you quote the ridicules Stephen Hawking. It is also no surprise that you practice rants about impotent applications of scientific methods. Russians have an idiom – “a hat burns on the head of theft” that is something similar to American “pot call a cattle black” but I like the Russian idiom more as it more encompassing… The senator Larry Craig was a big anti-gay activist because he needed to overcompensate his own internal issues – the hat was very obviously burning over years on the head of that theft…  I think your discomfort with science (or with whatever you believe science is) comes from the fact that you do not feel comfortable with science results you experienced with. Well, there is nothing wrong with it BUT I one more time would like to remind you that my site is not a avenue for social interaction but rather a subject-centric site.  With all of your more or less interesting views on world I hardly see any connection in what you say with audio. Even when you do talk about audio and use purely audio vocabulary I do not recognize that you mean anything applied-audio meaningful. I do not mean to be critical I juts would like you to be a little more self-censoring  when you post here as for the last few days there was uploaded a lot of ballast posts to this site that diluted my interest  to post around here. Perhaps it is my problem but it is kind of my personal site and I would like to keep it on the even keel of content that I recognize as “audio interesting”, interesting at least to me. 

Romy the Cat wrote:

I one more time would like to remind you that my site is not a avenue for social interaction but rather a subject-centric site.&nbsp; With all of your more or less interesting views on world I hardly see any connection in what you say with audio. Even when you do talk about audio and use purely audio vocabulary I do not recognize that you mean anything applied-audio meaningful. I do not mean to be critical I juts would like you to be a little more self-censoring&nbsp; when you post here as for the last few days there was uploaded a lot of ballast posts to this site that diluted my interest&nbsp; to post around here. Perhaps it is my problem but it is kind of my personal site and I would like to keep it on the even keel of content that I recognize as “audio interesting”, interesting at least to me.&nbsp; </P> Rgs, Romy the Cat