soundminded Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I hope when you lived in the Boston area, you took advantage of every opportunity to listen to concerts at Boston Symphony Hall, including the Boston Symphony Orchestra's performances. This room has been called by Leo Beranek "the best room for listening to music in the United States, possibly the best in the world." If there ever was a reference by which to judge all other musical sounds both live and recorded, this should be it. And of course, the Boston Symphony Orchestra was and is one of the greatest orchestras in the world. I'm sure they had may outstanding soloist performers also there and that they performed on some of the world's finest musical instruments. An absolutely golden opportunity for someone who designs serious high fidelity sound reproduction equipment for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 >The AR system was restricted to recreating>performance spaces. >In applying for my own patent, the US Patent office challenged me with Berkowitz at Acoustic Research who contended that all delays after the first 100 milliseconds were indistinguishable from random noise. I took issue with that 30 years ago and I take issue with it today. While it may not be possible to exactly reproduce all of those echoes precisely, it is critical IMO to reproduce their qualitative sum and substance. Did Berkowitz include a random noise generator in his device??? Any insight into how it worked? I never actually read through his entire patent application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bret Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 >Sheesh, are we all getting paid by the word?<Sorry, Ken. You know keeping my posts to your approved length is what I live-for, my leige.Bret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 >Sorry, Ken. You know keeping my posts to your approved length>is what I live-for, my leige.I figured there had to be something....But that wasn't my original point anyway, hint hint.-kkkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 No, I never went there. I never made recordings there, either. I was too busy hanging out down at the Paradise, getting my ears fried. One MUST get their ears fried to design speakers for a living. At least in Boston. -kkkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 No, I never went there. I never made recordings there, either. I was too busy hanging out down at the Paradise, getting my ears fried. One MUST get their ears fried to design speakers for a living. At least in Boston. -kkkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 You should read it, its very good. C'mon, surely you know that Berkovitz wasn't implying late reverbs are noise, or could be substituted by noise. He was talking about the energy distribution of late reverbs. To ridicule a reasonable insight such as this does not become you...-kkkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bret Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 >I figured there had to be something....<That was Ken Rickles, ladies and gentlemen, Ken Rickles. . . let's give him a big hand.But seriously folks. . .I have no idea what narrow issue you are saying would be better served by a step-by-step focus. Yes, I realize that I've just changed the subject. Let me.Bret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Per message #8 in this thread, I'm just feeling like the "classical music" issue that makes up the title of this thread is actually several different topics. Perhaps it is pointless to try and address them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 It wasn't a reasonable insight, it was a blunder. If you take a lot of vectors closely spaced in time and sum them to a scalar they look exactly like noise. As time passes after the initial few echoes the number of echoes arriving in any given time span at any point starts increasing exponentially. The point is, which the Patent office accepted was that HE could not distinguish them from random noise. It also makes no sense, it doesn't sound anything remotely like random noise anyway. It is the very essence of the reverberation. If you listened to Beranek's lecture, you know his architects stuggle to get at least a mere dozen echoes in that first 100 milliseconds. By the time two or three seconds have passed, thousands more of them arrive. Stick an omnidirectional microphone on a scope and they look exactly like noise. That's what he probably saw and that's what he likely concluded and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Peterh, I recommend you don't pursue the notion that somehow Bose 901 can reproduce concert hall acoustics. As an original owner of Bose 901 who has read everything Dr. Bose wrote about it that I could get my hands on it, as someone who has experimented with it extensively, and as someone who has also spent more than a little effort analyzing concert hall acoustics and trying to recreate them, I can say that Bose 901 is inherently no more capable of reproducing them than anyone else's speaker is. Whatever it's attributes, that capability isn't one of them and the rationalizaton in Dr. Bose's white paper giving his analogy about direct/reflecting sound being more like what he measured at Boston Symphony hall as justificaton for his speaker design is also badly flawed for several important reasons. If you read my postings about it in the archives here, I'm sure you will find many references to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Here are a couple of thoughts for you to consider;1. someone who has the tools to solve a problem but has never been schooled in the way other people have approached it, that is he knows just enough to be dangerous, in a way has an advantage over the "experts" who have been taught it all, because he must rethink the entire problem for himself from scratch. This can on rare occasion lead to entirely new and different approaches which avoid the limitations of the classical approach to solving the same problems and just might result in something with far greater insight and power. Often these people are dismissed as crackpots and usually they are but there is the rare case when they actually get the answers which escaped everyone else. Unlike a lot of those people, I do not intend to spend the rest of my life trying to prove I was right and they were wrong. Especially when not only are the profits but even the credit for having discovered it is usually stolen from them. 2. When you know in your mind what the answer to a problem should look like or in this case sound like and you are not limited by deadlines, budgets, and pleasing your boss to give him something he likes which he thinks will be marketable, you have the advantage of tinkering for a lifetime if necessary to find what you are looking for. This is what I was referring to in my thread in the "Mods tweaks and upgrades to the classics" message board about why hobbyists can beat professionals.http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/dcbo...mesg_id=7&page= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Oh stop, already, please. Your self-esteem is starting to get the better of you, and you are dismissing a very respected and accomplished contributer to the field. Worse, you are doing it by claiming he made, "a blunder." Uh, I don't think so. It wasn't a blunder at all. Bob has spent as much time as anyone listening to fine halls, and recording in them. I knew Bob as a thoughtful man with a brilliant mind and great ears. Undoubtedly, he has discussed this subject with Leo Beranek much more than you, and has probably heard more live music than you, too. -khttp://kkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I like this idea. It's almost poetic, if a slightly individualistic for my tastes. I bet all of us have dreamed of being "the outsider" who revolutionized a field, at one time or another. I know I dreamed of doing this in music. But I can't really think of anyone who has actually done that in science or engineering. Not in baseball or boxing, either. Success takes training and interaction. So, tell me, who has ever done this in audio? Another great shame is that if such a person existed, and all they did with their ideas was to shield them from the world and post a few internet messages, then the ideas would surely disappear as if they never existed. So, for all intents and purposes, those ideas need to be rediscovered by a more socially competent individual who will get all the credit anyway. Why not wait for them? After all, if someone acts like a crank, nobody is going to take them seriously. Not worth the time. -kkkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 PS- Uh, what "vectors" would those be that you are referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 >I like this idea. It's almost poetic, if a slightly>individualistic for my tastes. I bet all of us have dreamed>of being "the outsider" who revolutionized a field,>at one time or another. I know I dreamed of doing this in>music. >>But I can't really think of anyone who has actually done that>in science or engineering. Not in baseball or boxing, either.> Success takes training and interaction. >>So, tell me, who has ever done this in audio? >How about Edgar Villchur for one. All of the manufacturers he approached told him is acoustic suspension idea wouldn't work. How about Edwin Armstrong for another. Ever hear of him? He invented FM radio. First they told him it would never work. Then they stole it from him. His widow worked for decades to get her husband the recognition he deserved after he died. http://www.fathom.com/course/10701020/There are plenty of others. Like Sarnoff's theft of the invention of television by Farnsworth. Like Watson and Crick's theft of the discovery of the structure of DNA by Rosalind Franklin (American X-Ray technologist) The history of discovery is full of them, people you never heard of who made the actual discoveries and inventions. Colonel Stevens invented the steamboat. Fulton merely made it commercially successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Good argument. If you can't attack the substance of an idea, drop names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I give up. Further discussion is pointless. I'll call Dr. Warde. You deserve a full tuition refund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelongwood Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 I hope others here (if there are any left) are getting damned tired of the petty bickering and snide, sarcastic comments that seem to have replaced the intelligent, thoughtful, fact-filled discussions that were the main attractions of this forum.I know I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 "Good argument. If you can't attack the substance of an idea, drop names."If you are successful in getting my tuition returned, I shall happily donate it towards your education. Perhaps someone will be able to teach you that "sound" is a scalar, not a vector. Genius. -khttp://kkantor.spaces.live.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Pressure waves including sound waves travel outwards from a source. They have velocity which means both speed and direction as well as time varying intensity. Go back to Fluidics 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkantor Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Are you on something you want to share? It's been a long day. MANY inventors have been initially dismissed. That's not the point you were trying to make. New ideas and new companies are really hard to get accepted. But, every one of the people you mentioned was TRAINED in the field, and promoted their work openly and in any forum they could find. They were not outsiders. Villchur taught this stuff before he founded AR. He then went on to found what would be, for a time, the largest speaker company in the world. He doesn't fit your description above, in any way. Further, Vilchur was respectful of his competition, and alternatives to his technology. I used to think you were just a normal internet troll, but now I am starting to think that your reality testing is seriously impaired. -khttp://kkantor.spaces.live.comPS- the last post between us shall be yours, if you wish. Give it your best shot. Whatever you are interested in, it isn't reasonable discussion. Just tell us all about yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan461 Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 >I used to think you were just a normal internet troll, but now>I am starting to think that your reality testing is seriously>impaired. >I respect you and your opinion and you have probably forgotten more about speakers than most of us will ever know. Why a personal attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peterh Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 My point was that a multidirectional speaker gives you the hall-reflected sound on the original recording twice over (in a manner of speaking - actually you will hear it at a variety of arrival times unless you listen through headphones.) As for the AMOUNT of reflected sound you want to hear, I was trying to distinguish between reflected sound on the original recording (the sonic signature of the hall) and reflected sound that is added when radiation from the speaker bounces off the walls of your listening room. The Bose design can increase the latter but not the former. And since the latter is a kind of distortion, it would seem undesirable unless the recording were made in an anechoic chamber and your listening room resembled Carnegie Hall. So we are in agreement, I would think. And I don't pretend to your knowledge of the subject, I am just being common-sensical. Mr. Kantor's old NHT designs with the slanted baffle and woofer mounted above the tweeter presumably cut down the amount of room reflections and I assume this was intended to benefit the imaging. To my ears they did produce a very stable image, even the less expensive designs. But Mr. Kantor is of course right that a lot of people don't care about retrieving ambience on classical recordings. On recordings where imaging isn't there to begin with, the extra spaciousnesss added by the Bose approach can be a selling point. Best,PH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peterh Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Thanks, Jerry. I appreciate your suggestion. Sounds like a good project for the summer, assuming summer comes eventually (-;The biamp idea makes sense. This is off-topic, but I got great sound using a pair of KLH Sixes with a Dyna PAS preamp with the tone controls goosed a little. I know tone controls are frowned on, but this sounded really like the way the speakers were intended to sound. Maybe tubes are a good idea with these old speakers. I'm sure that's not an original thought!Best,Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.