Romy the Cat

Here it was another idiotic argument!

Time alignment does not involve the spacing between performers, but rather the spacing between the drivers in a loudspeaker system. Whenever there are two or more sources reproducing the same sound anomalies will occur. When the multiple sources are separated in time by more than 10 milliseconds or so, two distinct sounds, as in an echo, will be heard. This is not good. If the sources are separated by less of a time interval a comb filter will result. Comb filters cause a rough frequency response curve and lobing. Lobing causes a rough polar response which results in the sound reflecting off of the walls causing time smear and poor imaging. Irregular frequency response, time smear, and poor imaging. Not what we want. Proper time alignment of the drivers within a loudspeaker system eliminates and/or reduces those problems. The time/level shift between the performers in a recording is what allows us to perceive the stereo effect. A system with bad time alignment between its drivers interferes with that effect, affecting the realism of the reproduction. Correct answer, Don. The argument that used is immature and irrelevant. Romy the Cat

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> You misunderstand my definition of tricky and did not read it in context of the rest of the post. When I said tricky I did not mean the complexity of application but the negative feedback the TEF inflicts to methodological capacity and the listening awareness of the individual who are heavy rely on TEF. I witnessed it many-many times. I use a simple RTA (Gold-line with 1/12 octave, DAS options) with a very good calibrated mic that allows me to set the channels in correct time alignment. Since, all my channels are at first order and the hone are religiously parallel to align them running RTA with ¼ octave resolution is not difficult job to do. It is the only thing that I care and I never had needs to do into TEF as I have no other parameters that I am able or wiling to change. I do not think what I feel has anything to do with proud. It is your perception but no my expression. I really do not know also what it was all about! Once again it is you addressing your own internal cartoons, nothing else. I know all shortcomings of my Macondo, and trust me better then anyone else including you, in fact I told about it many times. Have I heard better acoustic systems then mine? I think it is incredible stupid way of thinking or asking but it a good way to hide rationally of own judgment. As you understand I will ask you about your dedicated audio systems as I would like do not be disappointed with your replies :-) I have many people who propose many improvements. However, before I accept them seriously I demand to name the actually problems against which the improvement might be applied. Usually at this level 99% of advisers are automatically filleted out. I have no problem to take criticism. Unfortunately people do not criticizes the actual subject but behave like adolescents (whell, that word I meant to use) who could not help themselves but by posting foolishness at online forums. Why I need to suck my pride, to have a pride or to trade my pride I relay do not know. It was exactly the adolescent idiocy that I meant Rgs, the Cat

Mike,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> OK, I will try to reply, although my post will be burden among the general adulterant idiocy that this thread has already contains. Yes, I am familiar with the subject of the time domain spectrometry. I do not go there as I have developed my own ways to answer the questions that I need to be answered, or let me to putt in this way to answer that have applied use. The TEF analysis is very tricky. It gives measurable data but does not present the reasoning of the data and does not interpret the measurements in context of means, methods and anything else. Still, it is not your stress of the modern acoustics was something that picked my interest in what you said but rather your comment about Macondo. I wonder what characteristics of Macondo implementation inspired you to accuse Macondo in time-smearing or incoherent wavefronts? (Actually the stressing of the waterfront shape is a separate subject) It is certainly that Macondo topology would produce much worst TEF result then a simple time-aliened 5 woofer with a suffocating ribbon but did you try to listen the simplistic TEF-perfect solutions? Have you seen a lot of properly TEF-implemented accustic systems (for home use) that actually sound interesting? Trust me, there is so much much much much MORE in acoustic then juts blind TEF-following. Sure TEF should be considered but First of all: I disregard the time-misaligned installations to begin with. Second: if you look a little bit less superficial then you will recognize that the design principles of Macondo do not have any needs to use TEF (if you know what I mean). Perhaps thinking about it you will find educational I appreciate that you picked the "X-Space" subject from my site and you are right it is the subjective perception of time-domain behavior. However, the quantification of the time-domain behavior is not what I have interest; I can get the data by other means. A high resolution time-domain analyses does not set DIRECTION OF REASONING and with it I found that in context of my objectives the domain spectrometry would be juts a self-entertaining toy. If you would like to understand that my current objectives are (and you most likely will be able to intrepid them from TEF perspective) then you might read my DPoLS article: http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=994 I ma sure the TEF will shows that you are there but it does not unfortunately indicates a direction there. All the rest I know without the domain spectrometry of modern acoustics. Rgs, Romy the caT

Hmmmm, there are many people on-line who just yell from the bushes some empty tradable phrases and who has absolutely zero understudying about nether what they said nor how it might relate to anything. I do not know you and if you comment is one of those many cases. If you have anything to put behind of your presumption of Macondos time-smear, early specular reflections and incoherant wavefronts then please do so. I will be happy to collaborate/address the subject.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Rgs, Romy the Cat

Tom, it has nothing to do with impressiveness or the needs to be impressed. Uselessly audio people just look at the manufacturers labels and brands and are blind to recognize the objectives and methodsThey are juts not accumulate all this audio just accumulate in their rooms without any rational or exercising very primitive judgment that the Industry have made them to embrace. I would say a lot about the simplicity, bordering with stupidity of perception, when audio people learn about others playbacks (the Morons most watch pictures), but I see no need to do it at this forum. The caT

In what I constructed there is nothing absurdish and whatever I do is with my playback is extremely rational and in precisely follows to my listening objectives. Also, I might assure you would not prefer Sound form a little and simple system to the result of my playback. There is a LOT of done in here that you did not experience in audio. Yes, it is very far from the Klipschs level of audio inelegance... Rgs, Romy the Cat