Carlspeak Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 Stumbled across this last night. It's somewhat lengthly,but well worth the time and effort. I read a lot of audio related articles and this one struck me as one of the best in a very long time. Lots of science and very little commercialism. IMO it could be of some help to many loudspeaker enthusiasts who visit here.It's all about the musicCarlCarl's Custom Loudspeakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 It's always comforting to know that when Floyd Toole writes an article it sooner or later gets around to the correlation between measurements and market preferences. This is because while he may have contributed little or nothing to advance the state of the art of knowledge of high fidelity sound recording and reproduction technology, he has made considerable progress in the state of the profits his boss Sidney Harman rakes in. If there's one thing Floyd Toole knows, it's where the market for his own talents lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlspeak Posted October 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I know you would weigh in on this one eventually in some negative way.This paper is already 4 years old. Nevertheless, JBL has evidently made some significant findings in the area of measurement/listener correlation.This seems to me to be just as valuable as any new hardware invention. Knowing exactly how measurements will affect the majority of audio consumer's listening satisfaction greatly enhances the developer's tool box.Additionally, what Mr. Poole aludes to at the end of the article agrees with 2 other more recent separate articles I've read on developments in duplication of concert hall acoustics in one's listening room. And that is, the most effective way to accomplish this is thru multi-channel (beyond 2) recordings/playback systems supplimented with equilization. The most successful of these being the result of professional equilization during installation of one's system.It's all about the musicCarlCarl's Custom Loudspeakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 >I know you would weigh in on this one eventually in some>negative way.And I knew you would defend incompetents in this failed industry which is remarkably long on hyperbole and short on technology that lives up to its claims. With the exception of the digital compact disc, this industry has gone nowhere in the last 40 years.>This paper is already 4 years old. Nevertheless, JBL has>evidently made some significant findings in the area of>measurement/listener correlation.This seems to me to be just>as valuable as any new hardware invention. Knowing exactly how>measurements will affect the majority of audio consumer's>listening satisfaction greatly enhances the developer's tool>box.That depends on the developer's goal, making money or producing more accurate sound that resembles musical instruments from recordings. Fortunately for Sidney, one has nothing to do with the other. Toole knows which side his bread is buttered on. >>Additionally, what Mr. Poole aludes to at the end of the>article agrees with 2 other more recent separate articles I've>read on developments in duplication of concert hall acoustics>in one's listening room. And that is, the most effective way>to accomplish this is thru multi-channel (beyond 2)>recordings/playback systems supplimented with equilization.>The most successful of these being the result of professional>equilization during installation of one's system.Because I am in the process of applying for additional patents, I cannot comment much on this subject except to say that in this regard, he is way out beyond his depth. Along with practically every other invention and theory I've seen, real scientific knowledge in this area is almost non-existant. If solving the problem of creating sound systems which can reliably duplicate the sound of musical instruments were they in your room is beyond the current state of the art, duplicating the effect of the acoustics of a carefully designed, built, and tuned million cubic foot room that cost a hundred million dollars on those instruments in you own home is way beyond anything currently contemplated including multi channel recording. That was tried once before and failed, don't you remember? It was called "quadraphonic sound." What makes you think octopus sound would be any more successful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlspeak Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 >....Because I am in the process of applying for additional patents, Additional to what? >I cannot comment much on this subject except to say that in this regard, he is way out beyond his depth. Along with practically every other invention and theory I've seen, real scientific knowledge in this area is almost non-existant. If solving the problem of creating sound systems which can reliably duplicate the sound of musical instruments were they in your room is beyond the current state of the art, duplicating the effect of the acoustics of a carefully designed, built, and tuned million cubic foot room that cost a hundred million dollars on those instruments in you own home is way beyond anything currently contemplated including multi channel recording. That was tried once before and failed, don't you remember? It was called "quadraphonic sound." What makes you think octopus sound would be any more successful? >>>Am I to understand only you have the means to solve this apparently unsolvable problem when a giant like Harmon Int'l with all their phd's and sophisticated testing capability can't? ;-)It's all about the musicCarlCarl's Custom Loudspeakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlspeak Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Soundminded, you didn't answer my first question stated previously.... >....Because I am in the process of applying for additional patents, Additional to what? Since your answer was yes to my second question, when can I participate in your IPO?It's all about the musicCarlCarl's Custom Loudspeakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynaco_dan Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Hi there;I was laughing at this comment when I read itIf we were listening to, Edgar Vilchur, in about 1952, we would have probably said the same thing about his small acoustic suspension woofer system.I believe at least two major hifi corporations poo poo'd his idea as well.We all know differently today.William Ruger, was also treated the same way.I for one, do hope, that we never run out of ideas.>Am I to understand only you have the means to solve this>apparently unsolvable problem when a giant like Harmon Int'l>with all their phd's and sophisticated testing capability>can't? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 VernI answered Carl off line. Solving a problem often requires something money can't buy....brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynaco_dan Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 >Vern>>I answered Carl off line. Solving a problem often requires>something money can't buy....brains.Hi there;I do not want to start a war of any kind here.Daily, we are presented with new ideas and inventions in our large world.How many times have you seen something newly available and said, "I knew that", or "I thought of that a long time ago", or something similar.We must always remember to respect our fellow members, with differing ideas and view points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundminded Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 >How many times have you seen something newly available and>said, "I knew that", or "I thought of that a>long time ago", or something similar.How many really dumb ideas have I heard? Far more than I can count and often the dumber they were, the more insistant the pests were that I entertain them by listening to them and pretend to take them seriously. I was on a vacation once and some guy heard that I lived in his area and had some technical knowledge. He would not let me alone until I heard his idea out. He wanted to invent a windmill powered electric car. He wanted the wind passing by the car as it traveled to drive a windmill to generate the electricity for the motor. When I told him that would be a perpetual motion machine, the only kind for which the US Patent Office requires a working model because it can't be done, he said handling these technical details would be my problem. I get bombareded with stuff like that all the time.In a pharmaceutical company, one guy wanted to know if I could do structural calculations. I said no. He said he wanted to put a sterilizer the size and weight of a railroad locomotive on the roof of an ordinary light warehouse building and wanted to know if the steel could support the weight. I told him no and I didn't need to calculate the answer. He then wanted to know if he could put rented house trailers in unused space inside the warehouse in lieu of building offices with sheetrock. I told him the building codes wouldn't allow it even if he did figure out how to drive them around the building support columns to get them where he needed them. You only have to be really nice to these kinds of people when they are paying you. >We must always remember to respect our fellow members, with>differing ideas and view points.I have no disputes or problems with Carl personally. We may have differences of opinions though. Differences of opinions about ideas, events, and the skills of third parties should never be construed as lack of respect for a person you're discussing them with. I feel free to attack any idea I find fault with without it being construed as an attack on the individual who proposed it. If I want to attack a person, I know how to do that too. In those cases, I don't usually throw the first punch but being originally from the Bronx if I get hit first, I don't hold anything back. This sometimes gets me in trouble. If Floyd Toole wants to come here and defend his ideas, I'll be glad to debate him. So far he's shown me nothing I'm interested in. What did you get out of his article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlspeak Posted October 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Thanks Vern for the defense, but Soundminded's response was off-line and definitely not off color. I understand his position completely.It's all about the musicCarlCarl's Custom Loudspeakers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.