Holographic imaging

09-28-08: Roger_paul
09-28-08: Tvad -
Can you tell me the difference between a standard fuse and an Isoclean fuse? (besides more than $30).
The answer is – one sounds good the other sounds fantastic. It is a sonic or acoustic recognition of superior performance. But how can this be? You surely cannot measure any difference electrically.

Well, I'll give it a shot. First, I have tried Isoclean fuses and heard a subtle improvement, so I'm not among those who will agree with the opinion that they sound fantastic.

Frankly, I wonder if I could identify a component in my system that had one installed if a friend installed it (or didn't) while I was out of the room).

I suspect their electrical properties can be measured by the appropriate equipment, but I have no idea what it would be, nor am I particularly interested in finding out.

How about AVM (Anti Vibration Magic) paint? Simply applying it to transformers and wires and other components makes a HUGE difference sonically.

I'll have to take your word for it since I've never heard the sonic effects of magic paint in my system.

My point in the post you quoted wasn't one of arguing the merits of testing. Rather, it was highlighting that the issue has been contentious in many threads regarding numerous products. Yours has become one of them.

I agree with you that one should buy a product if they like the sound it produces.

It's my opinion that you do yourself a disservice by marketing a product with a claim that cannot be verified, because it draws so much negative energy to your cause.

Funny Roger.

Ha Ha

The ship is sinking.

Head for your lifeboat.

Tvad,

Thank you for a civil response. I honestly don’t know what the answer is regarding the issue of having to provide proof that something works other than just listening to the results. The fact is that I have been able to accomplish a great deal of work that has been done virtually in the dark (thanks to the inability of test equipment to point to the problem).
I can attribute this only to my decision years ago to follow a theory I came up with that associated what I was hearing to what I understood to be the actions of the amplifier circuit I was listening to.

The subtle misplacement of objects (in my sonic image) seemed to be caused by very slight alterations in phase but enough to matter when “projected” over a large area (stage). I seemed to have locked on to this concept that this was the mechanism for a lack of pinpoint focus that would be able to discern the difference between background singers as separate individuals. Their exact placement in the “projection” was totally reliant on the ability of the amplifier to pass the signal including the tiniest phase information needed to reconstruct the vector-based acoustic image. The simple act of triangulating the apparent location of objects would easily be scattered by a circuit that was not velocity stabilized. You would hear a general location for a given object but you could not pinpoint it as you would in real life.

The difference between listening to a real performance in front of you and an electronically reproduced performance is the medium. One is AIR and the other is AIR stored in an electrical format. As I have tried to explain – if you tamper with the electrical format before you convert it back to acoustic output. You have essentially tampered with the “stored” air medium. In this case any change in electrical velocity is proportional to changes in the “stored” air velocity. You therefore get the sensation that the sound objects in the reconstructed “projection” are moving slightly toward or away from you. This is recognized by the listener as “out of focus” or “bloated” but the proper technical term is Doppler interference.

Roger

Well, you go incommunicado for four days and a good deal happens. I have had the advantage of hearing at least 7 stages of the development of Roger's capability to "tighten up" Doppler shifts. While this trip has been expensive and often irritating, where I am now in terms of great realism in reproduced music is something I will never regret having taken this long path. Roger's theory has proven correct in my experience.

All that I can really attest to is that Roger has told me he increased a tighter clamp on the signal by tighter Doppler correction, what I hear is greatly improved in its realism. Many times I have thought certainly there could be no further improvement only to be proven wrong later.

I do know that Roger has leased test equipment to assess the benefits of his improvements only to see nothing in the measurements but obvious benefits in what you hear. I have always thought that it is ridiculous to suggest that if instruments don't measure it that it doesn't exist. What it indicates is the sensitivity of the ear. I grant that we can be deceived, but typically we are not, and thankfully so as we would not have survived in this dangerous world.

I have been largely responsible for "awakening" Roger to AVM and IsoClean fuses as I am always tweaking and sometimes with success. If some don't hear the benefits of these tweaks, it is of no concern to me, but Roger has.

I really think that I merely suggested that if one really wants to hear a holographic image you needed to LISTEN to the H-Cat amp especially with the H-Cat line stage in front of it with its WTC set correctly.

If you don't like what you hear, I am sorry you don't share my experience.

One further thought. I would challenge any of you to defend in theory and in measurement what you judge to be a superior amp or the one you own. And please don't say it is low in THD, or worse yet the lowest in THD! I have heard amps with low THD versus those with somewhat higher distortion. None of the lowest were very distinguished and would get my money.

Last year at the RMAF Stereophile gave seminars on amps showing the Boulder had quite low THD and reacted well to loads put on it. Another unnamed amp did poorly on THD. I innocently asked whether the unnamed amp's designer thought THD was a design concern. Everyone looked at me as thought I was profane. I left the room as no one was interested in sound.