Holographic imaging

Detlof, it is perhaps rashly a dead horse. You chose the words you used, so I perhaps inferred what you said. Roger is painted too broadly with the brush of not explaining what he has come up with and others have not adequately explained, even using currently acceptable terms why some amps sound better. The losers are those who believe that the H-Cat is not worth a listen.

Bear in mind that this is a posting on achieving holographic sound images. It has become, however, the typical measurement is all versus sound is all confrontation that so often underlies discussions here and on AudioAsylum. It will always be a dead horse.

Tbg just to clarify some points, you are right, I'm not a fan of the THD spec. I feel that it does not matter how much distortion an amp or preamp makes **so long as those distortions are not found objectionable to the human ear**. By the same token I feel that it matters *a lot* about the distortions that the ear *does* care about. IOW its all about the Rules of Human Hearing, which I think are the most important things in audio- everything comes from that. For more information see

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html

The debate about 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' which has been emerging on this thread has been an aspect of the Voltage vs Power Paradigms. You might think I am objectivist due to the way I have been challenging Roger, but I feel the Rules of Human Hearing are what are important, and not trying to make an amp or preamp conform to ideals that only exist on paper.

What we are talking about here is that there can be specs on paper that don't matter to the human ear- the old argument about how you can hear things but not quantify them. What I have found in the investigation of the paradigms is that all that is really happing is that we are simply not measuring the things that are important. If we did, the specs on paper would tell us how a product would sound. Its really that simple. The point is- one way or another, it really is all measurable if you know what to look for and do not limit your investigation to the blinders of the Voltage Paradigm.

The same is true with Roger. He could *easily* measure what he is talking about. After all, did he not devise his Doppler Effect detectors? They are, according to his website, able to correct the behavior of his circuit to eliminate or substantially reduce the phenomena. If they are able to modify the operation of his preamp, then they are also a tool for measurement. Where I see his arguments failing is that anyone in possession of such devices would be *acutely* aware of this fact. That he maintains that the effect is *not* measurable: Occam's Razor then suggests that these 'detectors' do not actually exist.

I can understand Roger continuing this discord.After all he is financially involved.What I don't understand is why Tbg now feels the need to continue.
Personally I am partial to Lamm,Shindo and dehavilland electronics.I'm sure there are many that would disagree with me.If others thought these MFG's claims were off base so be it.Whatever turns you on.
Guys you all have systems that you enjoy.GO AND LISTEN TO IT.

What I don't understand is why H-CAT doesn't have the audiophile community beating a path to its door (not that it isn't a great piece of gear, I don't know, I have never heard it). I don't have any idea what Ralph measures or doesn't measure, but I do know that his gear is bought by many, that most owners love them and are extremely brand loyal, and that he has been successfully running his business for many years, which makes me think that he's on to something. I will, however go listen to the H-CAT if it is at RMAF and couldn't care less what is being measured or not, I'll just listen. I don't think "theory" marketing makes for long term success in the audio market, though it might get you a surge of interest that might or might not be sustained once enough people of have owned and expreienced the equipment -- then it better sound good no matter what your theory is.

To get one thing clear: I am not a measurement guy.That should have been clear from my post above and as Atmasphere has pointed out, this is not a debate between measurements and ear, between "subjective" and " objective ". What I meant by "current scientific terms " I could also put less politely by saying that Ralph's arguments to me seem logical and to me make sense, whereas I must say that I find Rogers' reasoning shifty, contradictory and lacking in stringency and logic. As far as I am concerned, this does not necessarily inspire confidence. On the other hand however, even if Rogers reasoning may not be up to standard, this does not mean, that he is not up to something valid. Only his way of explaining and "selling" it would hardly convince a critical mind, not even one belonging to a good willed person. Again, as also Pubul57 so rightly suggests, the proof lies in the listening and Goldeneraguy, yes indeed, I wish we could turn to other things of interest and I'll try to make this my last statement in this matter.