Holographic imaging

Tvad is right, let us move one. This leads to nothing and to nobodies benefit. Ralph can offer explanations, which are well founded in current scientific terms how his gear will sound and why. Roger cannot, which does not necessarily mean that he is wrong, but he is certainly out of the mainstream. Although we are all familiar with certain vendors of aural snake oil, who sometimes use terminology fairly close to his, this does not by a long shot mean that he belongs to that group. Besides he is right to maintain, that the performance of good rigs goes far beyond of what can be measured. It it legitimate for Ttg to like what he likes, just as it is legitimate for Bill not to like it. He has been outspoken and caustic about his dislikes on many threads, he is not the only one to do so.
It is equally legitimate for Roger to defend his point of view and to propogate his wares as a side effect. As long as we cannot hear his stuff in our rigs, we cannot really form an opinion. What I do think however, from reading what Roger says about the sonic benefits of his devices, that a well set up rig will achieve pretty much the same holography. I have for example with good software not the least difficulty in discerning single voices, be it in a big classical chorus work or -much easier -background singers in a jazz piece.
Whatever, the proof, as always, lies in the listening and as long as somebody really neutral has not listend to this thing (that counts out Bill and Tbg (: ) and Roger cannot come up with an explanation in more currently accepted terms, I feel we could move on and put that CAT back behind the oven.

Detlof, save for your committment to "current scientific terms," I cannot help but agree that listening yourself is the only real way to tell. We don't really know whether Ralph has a handle on what is best in design or whether he is hidebound by conventional wisdom. Personally I have never heard any amplifier that equals the H-Cat, although a friend with the H-Cat tells me that the much more expensive Lindemann does and then some.

Roger need not "come up with an explanation in more currently accepted terms," anymore than Ralph needs to explain why his amp is preferable to many others. Basically, currently accepted terms, are insufficient to account for why some amps sound better. Even Ralph, I would assume, would not say that it is THD as he prefers tube amps with higher THD.

If you make a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door, regardless of whether you can explain it is "currently accepted term."

As I first stated, you are doing yourselves a disservice if you don't take advantage of getting a listen to these H-Cat products. I would welcome anyone to come down and hear mine.

Tbg, I would submit, that there is nothing in my post for you to infer, that I am committed to "current scientific terms". You don't know what I am committed to, because I have not said it. What I am committed to here however is simply that we stop beating a dead horse. Don't you think, that by now all has been said and opinions have been formed? As Tvad has suggested, please let us move on......

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.