Holographic imaging

Shadorne,

I stand corrected. I should not have described the shift in velocity as instantaneous. That would be a near digital event. I was thinking of an instant in time where the velocity has shifted slightly higher – causing the 1000 hz to appear as 1005 hz. I am certainly aware that all deviations from true linearity are generally “smooth” transitions. (A kind of bend or warp in the shape of the sine wave.)

This brings me back to my earlier attempt to describe a 2khz measurement from a 1khz fundamental. The shape of the sine wave will have to have at least a portion of its rise or fall time doubled in speed. That is a considerable “bend” in the shape to be “seen” by the THD analyzer as twice the frequency (harmonic).

If you can reduce the bending and warping to a fraction of that amount – you can limit the distortion to one of mere phase shift instead of frequency shift. Instead of the energy sliding up the spectrum to 2khz - it only moves slightly up the spectrum and is limited to a region at or around the fundamental frequency. (1005 hz)

If you can detect the START of this deviation AS IT HAPPENS and correct it on the fly – it will never have a chance to inflict damage on the final acoustic output. Dealing with this issue while it was reduced to phase errors instead of frequency errors is why the system I developed is a Doppler control system. The entire complex musical event is phase locked to the fundamental (primary) image. As a result it has a massive stabilizing effect on the perceived location of sound objects and is totally transparent.

Roger

Surely this is a matter of the emperor's new clothes. That was my point with the doppler shift argument. Another classic example of taking a scientifically established effect and then either playing with the definition, as in this case, or taking it out of the range where it makes a difference.

One must remember, the burden always lies with the party asserting that some effect exists, not with those that say it does not. For effects that exist, proof is possible and done with emperical data coupled with mathematically expressed explanations ( not just reference to mathematical terms - which is more of the same), with no leaps of logic or 'filling in the gaps.' And if the effect exists, it will be published in peer reviewed literature (i.e. peers being scientists and engineers in the field and without a pecuniary interest in whether the effect exists or not, not other dealers in audio gear or others whose sole credential is designing audio equipment). Expect to find explanations in, for example, IEEE journals or journals of that caliber and peer review in the applicable scientific field.

When a scientific term with an exact meaning is applied in a manner that steps outside the accepted scientific definition of the term, one need not go any further. This is a sure sign that there is nothing to argue about. It in essence proves the invalidity of any further proffered explanations in support of the theory. All future explanations are built on a stack of cards that has been toppled.

It seems to me that Roger_ Paul has the time to answer posts
and make certain statements but when asked to answer Atmasphere's questions he states he is busy.He also contradicts himself several times.
Tvad is correct as he usually is ,If you enjoy what your listening to that is all that counts.
I wonder if TBG is smiling,I would think Audiofeil is.

This is fun, I agree with both Shadrone and Tvad.

In this forum the 'emporer's new clothes' is inappropriate, I think. It's more the the 'emporer's old clothes'. If you've been here for any time you've seen it before, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's just that some claims are so far fetched that they become self defeating. Personally I enjoy threads on reasonance control with components and room acoustics. Some solid concerns taken to an absurd level just to sell products to the eager audiophile with a real or percieved problem. Generic observations and advise given to cure a very specific problem which require equally specific solutions. Almost as much as the Sunday funnies.

But that is probably half the fun of the hobby. Playing with tweaks and ancillary equipment. If folks want to believe these claims and recieve benefits from these beliefs, good on them. Let them go in peace. They could actually be right! :-)

But when a manufacturer/designer comes forward to explain or defend his product he does so at his own peril. Roger Paul is not the first one, nor will he be the last. At least when designers of 'mystical' equipment do come forward and fail to provide an intelligent explaination of their product's function, they do much to remove all doubt from inquiring minds about the likelihood that the product is going to be found to be metorious. And if the designer can't adequately explain his design and it's the audience's dullness that is responsible, well - what did he expect to find here anyways, a bunch of astrophysicists (rocket scientists)? :-)