Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Macondo’s lowest channel.
Post Subject: A new paradigm for ULF?Posted by oxric on: 2/9/2011
fiogf49gjkf0d

 Romy the Cat wrote:

The most important in audio is a state of realization and obtaining this state is a matter of time I am afraid. Let pretend that tomorrow I will build/buy some kind of speaker that would do the perfect ULF channel for me...

What I am trying to say is that the ultimate ULF channel is not only a combinations expensive driver in some kind of enclosure....The satisfaction is fulfillment of objectives and in my estimate a person need first to develop well formed  objectives, very clearly visualize the result and ONLY then, after the concept is conceived and clearly indentified, ONLY THEN the person might render the objectives.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=432



Romy:

I actually agree with your approach and my slightly frivolous comments of not wanting to spend too much time researching/optimising the ULF channel should be read in the context of a partial house move to a new country whilst learning, testing, evaluating, and using own evolving understanding of sound, a field in which I profess neither innate flair nor expertise.

 Romy the Cat wrote:

...Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound.  It is not as bad as it sound in writing and it need to be demonstrated, not explained at a web site. Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate it even to myself and I have the notion as a pure fiction of my mind, sort of a hallucination, a dream that I would like one day to render as a reality.



Romy:

I believe that although you may be wrong to make a difference between ULF and the rest of the frequency range, this is where your better understanding of the abilities and unexploited potential of your playback enables you to take a more efficient and intuitive route to the solution which best suits your understanding of your own personal sonic needs. I admire that ability. I am the first to admit I don't think I have it, that intuitive sense of the destination before knowing even how to get there. 

 Romy the Cat wrote:

However, the last few months, since I finished my midbass project, my views slightly changed. Nowadays I would like to have less ULF to midbass integration and I would like my ULF NOT to be a continuation of Music but rather to be a separate stand-alone awareness of Sound. 



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 and search for pattern and homogeneity between the channels ( only to mention a few, use of three Vitavox drivers, use of same topology amplication for different channels, high efficiency across all channels, a search for neutrality the dominant theme with little touches to 'colour' sound according to your undertanding of sound - re the injection channel). So the statement that your views have changed in that respect constitutes the equivalent of revisiting and reworking the American Constitution when no-one was looking. It is potentially revolutionary but chances are that you are simply mistaken and slightly off balance because your system has not stabilised enough the way you planned for it to be before your house move, not in the least because of your less than pleasant run-ins with PurePower.

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?

In other words, the final objection would therefore boil down to is there something about our perception of ULF which renders our understanding of it and approach to it a different matter altogether to the rest of the spectrum? Is there any merit in treating this lowest octave so differently when it accounts for such a small part of the musical works that we generally expose ourselves to and enjoy. 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.

Maybe what you are suggesting has to do with very primitive evolutionary mechanisms which condition our approach to ULF. We know of course that in nature, you do not come across ULF unless something rather monumental and potentially catastrophic has happened. I am thinking of such things as earthquakes, thunder, explosions, massive collisions and crashes. But when it comes to performed or recorded music, are these primeval elements still a factor? Again I doubt it but I may be wrong.

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.'

As a completely separate aside, in calculus, when we talk about integration we very often think either of summing or finding an original function. When we differentiate we have however lost some information that the resulting differentiated function by itself is not capable of capturing without some additional help. Maybe we do the same thing when we try to develop our playback. By definition, it is inherently limited and compromised but we can seek additional help that enables us to get that little bit closer to the performance...

All the best
Rakesh


Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site