Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Macondo’s lowest channel.
Post Subject: …a number of logical flaws…Posted by Romy the Cat on: 2/9/2011
fiogf49gjkf0d

 oxric wrote:
I believe that although you may be wrong to make a difference between ULF and the rest of the frequency range….

I know when I wrote it I would raise some eyebrows of the few readers of my site who actually are thinking but not scans my site in search for the buy recommendations. Yes, I know that taking about ULF as a standalone expressive tool instead of integrated channel is not too popular and might be controversial. I think the only prove is the actual taste of the pudding and the only way to battle the controversy is the demonstration of the actual result. With exception of the fact that I have no actual results with ULF to demonstrate, even to myself, … I feel that there is “something” in what I am envisioning now.
 oxric wrote:
I see a number of logical flaws with this view and I was hoping someone else, who may have a similar feeling to yours, would try to expand on it before I and/or others start discussing or criticising what is not a fully fledged argument. The first view must be right. Without integration, and a homogeneous sound to start with, the result is complete chaos. In fact one can only look at your system to see the high order of integration ….

Yes and no. When you think about ULF being not the part of the rest frequency range but a separate expressive article then why do you think in terms of bad implementation that we all are familiar when ULF sound as irrelevant entry? When I am taking about what I am taking about I’m taking about separation but relevancy, but in a way an indirect relevancy. Let me give you an associative example, even a bit banal. Your wife wares a black dress with a single red rose. The red color of rose is not the part of rest of the bandwidth but together they form a proper ensemble...

 oxric wrote:
A second objection is that why single out the ULF channel? For instance, why not make the midrange a separate 'stand-alone awareness of sound' or all the channels to varying degrees? You have never previously and I do not think you are now making a change in your need to integrate these channels. So it looks to me that for your view to even start making sense that there must be something about ULF that makes it different to other channels, including in fact the mid-bass and upper-bass. What could that be?

ULF is different because it is a peripheral channel.

 oxric wrote:
I of course undertand that there is a difference in the way we perceive ULF when it comes to the way human hearing operates. I however cannot see a biological or anatomic rational that would require us to treat the integration of ULF any differently.

Think about timing of events. An event happens in a Symphony Hall and in 1.5 second you have around -40dB at 20Hz. Since the reverberation time in our listening room is way shorter and if the main playback care the whole bandwidth very nicely then why ULF can’t take care about let say -15dB level?

 oxric wrote:
Could it be something about our exposure to ULF in commercial or domestic installations is so inherently flawed that we need a new language to capture the potential of the lowest frequency range? I am not convinced. I hope that as your ULF channel evolves you will tell us more about this rather novel and indeed revolutionary idea that the aim maybe is not to integrate the ULF as a 'continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.'

The idea about new language is a good one. I keep thinking about it myself for a while.

The Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site