Holographic imaging

Goldeneraguy, Roger's design is in my opinion far superior to anything I have ever heard. I don't teach students what audio to buy but rather teach what research shows. I am not in the science of amplifier circuits and know none posting here are either. I don't know how Roger conceived of this Doppler correction circuit or even why it has so improved over time, but I do know it has.

He is proud of what he has accomplished and the proof that it works. He is honestly trying to convey his thinking which underlies his circuit. I have told him that those who demand an explanation based on currently accepted terminology are not interested in sound, so he should not bother with them. None seem capable of defending their personal amps or those they make. But they demand it of Roger and he foolishly responds.

This is a great amp.

Tvad, I probably started the slide by suggesting that electronics can contribute to holographic imaging. That brought the usual response from you know who. I think Roger was merely trying again to explain his ideas. He is too sincere and insufficiently dismissive of ignorant responses for his own good.

I only ever said that it sounded outstanding. Some did ask why and I gave a response limited to my understanding even though for me it did not matter.

Roger, of course I agree that things happen in between the microphone and the loudspeakers that alter the perception of the recording - some intentional, and some not.

Aside from your assertions, I do not know of a single source that ascribes any perceptible alteration of the signal to doppler distortion in amplifiers. Based on your description of this distortion, and published psychoacoustic research on human hearing characteristics, I do not believe the distortion you propose would be audible even if it did exist.

Duke
dealer/manuacturer

" I have told him that those who demand an explanation based on currently accepted terminology are not interested in sound..."

This is the most hilarious statement so far and that by an academic no less, I am out of here laughing.......

I hope you don't mind, after my fit of laughter has passed, that I poke my nose once more into the door, before shutting it finally tight:

In reading Rogers texts carefully, and I have been trained to do so and have used this training in all of my professional life, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his sincerity. Roger truly believes that he is up to something valid and he very well may be. Possibly he is one of those people, who out of intuition have come across something which is valid and valuable but- as is the case with all intuitive findings - they cannot at first explain in reasonable terms. This generally causes wrinkled brows from the mainstream, who - especially if they are interested and curious - want some sort of proof and if they don't get to their satisfaction the originator will get flak. The history of scientific progress is full of such cases and if we have one of those here, well, as I have said right from the beginning, the proof lies in the listening.
Thre is another thing typical in the unfolding of our discussion here:
Originators who seem to have something new in the sense of a break-through - and it does not matter in what field of human endevour this may happen - generally have supporters,disciples, prophets if you like, who are out to find proselytes for their cause. They are usually much more fervent, glowing, emotional in defending the cause than its originator. These people will easily join battle with emotions flying high and because of this fact, rationality, the careful considering of the "disbelievers" argument is neglected. Case in point here: This has never been an argument of measurement *against* sound, rather an argument of measurement *for* sound, which has suddenly been twisted from the latter into the former, which it never was, neither in Duke's nor Atmasphere's posts. Both gentlemen, as most of us here, are very well aware of the fact, that good measurements do not guarantee good sound. So before things get more ugly and distorted, I think we should stop and ponder what we are doing here and I certainly do not take my own person out of this equation.
I suggest we stop right here. Norm's efforts do not seem to satisfy the skeptics, he might even do Roger's cause a disservice.
On the other hand, I find Nil's suggestion great, that Roger would give a loan of his gear to a carefully considered neutral person who then could report back to us.
Again let us stop here, and that certainly goes also for myself, before it gets more ugly, irrational and out of joint. Just my final 2 cents.