• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Ruffled Feathers -n- All......The Integral Transference Project

Roberts,

I have read (well, skimmed) through the white papers, and I am a bit puzzled about the intended audience for the papers. I'm a simple minded physicist and I conclude that I am not among the targeted readers.

My main concern is this: The papers in no way clearly define the objective ('Sonic Holy Grail') nor show how the proposed integral transference is a viable approach to reaching the objective. As far as the theoretical treatment goes I'm afraid I'll have to quote one of my mentors: "It isn't even wrong". For what it is worth, the papers at best provide a conceptual skeleton with very little meat in terms of useful theory and experimental results.

I am not saying that the core ideas of the inventor lack merit, only that it is very hard to judge from reading the white papers.

Finally, I have some practical concerns - the total lack of WAF - wife accepance factor: Referring to the figure below, with specialized sound sources representing different instruments. While my favorite Oscar Peterson Trio would fit nicely into my initmate living room, I shudder at the thought of listening to the 12 cellists of the Berlin Philharmonic, not to mention the full orchestra. :)


Just my initial thoughts.

- Harald
 
Last edited:
Roberts,

I have read (well, skimmed) through the white papers, and I am a bit puzzled about the intended audience for the papers. I'm a simple minded physicist and I conclude that I am not among the targeted readers.
Click to expand...

True. I believe the best targets would be Universal studios, Disney, etc. I am initially asking here to get some feedback from the home music lovers presepctive and that of a wide range of listeners, observers. I believe the system can find its way in homes in the future.



My main concern is this: The papers in no way clearly define the objective ('Sonic Holy Grail') nor show how the proposed integral transference is a viable approach to reaching the objective.
Click to expand...

The papers cover enough elements to display what is wrong and possible solutions to overcome such problems. The micro macro volume is one key area covered in depth. I admit it does not read like an editorial nor are the papers targeted at a consumer audience. Research papers make for non entertaining reading. If you read some of my follow-ups, perhaps they may be more insightful.

As far as the theoretical treatment goes I'm afraid I'll have to quote one of my mentors: "It isn't even wrong". For what it is worth, the papers at best provide a conceptual skeleton with very little meat in terms of useful theory and experimental results. I am not saying that the core ideas of the inventor lack merit, only that it is very hard to judge from reading the white papers.
Click to expand...

True. As research papers go, they do not usually cover "all the answers" as the technical directorate and lab supervisors have a separate set of papers that are on-going to support the originals. SO many "spin-offs" occur from the first papers and the Lab stages are not complete.



Finally, I have some practical concerns - the total lack of WAF - wife accepance factor: Referring to the figure below, with specialized sound sources representing different instruments. While my favorite Oscar Peterson Trio would fit nicely into my initmate living room, I shudder at the thought of listening to the 12 cellists of the Berlin Philharmonic, not to mention the full orchestra.
Click to expand...


I do think one day the technology can trickle down for consumer use in a relative small package, programmable for proper reproduction for a given amount of Ft/3 space and positive decor options or WAF. Imagine the room having slightly thicker than wallpaper covering for the active acoustics and a single sphere in the center of the room. This would be the final objective. User controls to be able to "adjust the mix" to your liking is another. How many times has the source itself been the issue and how many equilizers and tone rendering controls have been employed in previous home audio systems? This system would give the ultimate in user control IF desired.



Just my initial thoughts.
Click to expand...

Really good ones as well. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Well I did read through the web site and tried my best to figure what application it has. IMHO, it will be limited at best either in a commercial venue or in the home.

Why?

For pure music listening, most 2-channel systems are more than adequate and give a pretty true sense of "being there". When a person goes to a live show, the music is in front of them on a stage. The audience does not sit in the middle with the musicians around them. One does not listen to the music from the middle of the orchestra and certainly not from a spot 5 feet in front of the drummer at a rock show. Most musicians have a hard time hearing the "show" over the instruments they and the others nearest them are playing.

This technology, like the variants of surround sound, attempts to do just that. With SS and a movie, there is an ulterior motive with SS. It’s to pull the viewer into the movie by closing the sound envelope around the viewer. Heavy woofers give that tactile feel to heavy sounds.

This technology attempts to take SS a step further. In the home SS works well, but only if you’re in the sweet spot does it complete the picture correctly. My Outlaw has settings to correct for the speed of sound if the speakers are at different distances from the viewer. I can’t say about other systems but I doubt most are set up in an optimized fashion, and if they are, its for a very small sweet spot.

SS in a theater works for those near the center of the surrounds. If you’re off to the side you tend to get only that side of the experience. This new technology will have the same failings.

My 2c.
 
Last edited:
Explosion events in front of you absolutly do not mirror implosion events of a "surround sound" system. With active acoustics, you choose where and how far away you want the sound to come from. You can choose a point 70 feet beyond your front wall with this technology.
 
I also want to add, in home entertainment systems, I believe we have a fine line between "emotional overload" and simply "getting it to sound right". The definition between "getting it right" and invoking the natural emotional senses of an actual performance is the holy grail. Real performances are not scientific exersizes. Real perfomances are a bonding between the performers and the audience. If a system were perfect scientifically in every detail, this would not leave much to the imagination and I really believe one would grow quite tired of it in a short period of time. When a system can translate the performance energy to the souls of the audience, you are still faced with the question "what audience are we speaking of"? Therefore, some user control is of order. We all have products that we have purchased we grow tired of. We also have vast collections of music whose sonic attributes are less than stellar although we enjoy the performance. Hi fidelity is a catch 22. It is almost a joke in some proportions. Listeners have to rely on the recording and mastering engineers, not to mention the home audio system and acoustics to relay some faxsimilie of the original producers intentions. We have people who are monaural lovers. I have heard some mighty fine Mono systems. The so called "holy grail" can happen if the end user has enough control to make it so to them. Current audio systems are "hell bent" on "accuracy" even though a very very small percentage of music lovers have investments in room treatments or a calibrated chain. We are at the mercy of the production staff, our rooms and our loudspeakers. I would also like to explore more on this vein. We can't allow scientific explainations to get "in the way" of what we are seeking as far as musical involvement and emotion fulfillment.
 
Last edited:
Right on

I have personaly seen some people spend thousands of dollars trying to overcome a bad room when a fraction of that amount would correct the room. From Drapes to furniture acoustic treatments to the room itself sometimes are more productive that a thousand dollar AC coupling device. . . :naughty:



Roberts said:
I also want to add, in home entertainment systems, I believe we have a fine line between "emotional overload" and simply "getting it to sound right". The definition between "getting it right" and invoking the natural emotional senses of an actual performance is the holy grail. Real performances are not scientific exersizes. Real perfomances are a bonding between the performers and the audience. If a system were perfect scientifically in every detail, this would not leave much to the imagination and I really believe one would grow quite tired of it in a short period of time. When a system can translate the performance energy to the souls of the audience, you are still faced with the question "what audience are we speaking of"? Therefore, some user control is of order. We all have products that we have purchased we grow tired of. We also have vast collections of music whose sonic attributes are less than stellar although we enjoy the performance. Hi fidelity is a catch 22. It is almost a joke in some proportions. Listeners have to rely on the recording and mastering engineers, not to mention the home audio system and acoustics to relay some faxsimilie of the original producers intentions. We have people who are monaural lovers. I have heard some mighty fine Mono systems. The so called "holy grail" can happen if the end user has enough control to make it so to them. Current audio systems are "hell bent" on "accuracy" even though a very very small percentage of music lovers have investments in room treatments or a calibrated chain. We are at the mercy of the production staff, our rooms and our loudspeakers. I would also like to explore more on this vein. We can't allow scientific explainations to get "in the way" of what we are seeking as far as musical involvement and emotion fulfillment.
Click to expand...
 
Lets hold on one moment here.

It has been brought to my attention that this thread has been linked to other forums on the web without my knowledge. Also, to set the record strait, I am not the author of this paper and nowhere do I state this. I am on the *D/V team. One would hope careful reading and consideration for the integrety of these works would be observed. The statement "The author of these papers has joined in a discussion in a thread over at AudioKarma" is false. I do not know how this information could have been manufactured. If you read my initial post (posted by me first, reposted in this thread and subsequent PM's that I wrote), you will find the PROPER information without the disinformation that has been bounced back to me.

I really wonder why anyone (echo wars) would want to extrapolate something that is not fact.

How about it echo wars? Why did you come to these conclusions? I really want to know this. I would appreciate if you set the record strait. This is not my money you are fooling with here. Lets keep this clean and honest shall we?

*D/V: Demonstration/Validation



Sincerely,

Roberts.
 
Last edited:
I thought we were past the mudslinging???

Your original post, as well as those subsequent, strongly suggested that you were the author. If not, well then, you're not. Certainly wasn't an attempt at character assassination. End of story. I'm done apologising.
 
Last edited:
No mud slinging implied. I want things to be strait, honest. not distorted.
This is not asking too much.

This is the sentence that needs to be read VERY slowly and carefully.

I will disclose my involvement with this. I was introduced to this research about 12 years ago and have been involved with some of the "proving" aspects of it.
Click to expand...

It is not my intention to call you out but I am not the person who has invested 7 digits on this research and I am at liberty to finally share these papers. With that, lets just read carefully. I am in the position to answer certain questions. If anyone is interested in going really deep:

My next quote:

I am looking for the audio lover and music lovers perspective, based on reading the papers and absorbing the material. I can answer a few questions or invite the writer /designer to answer.
Click to expand...

Are we clear now? I cannot have the wrong information uninvited being placed on other web boards. You should have asked me.

Please correct your error on the boards which you posted and all is well. I do want this post to be included in its complete form. I do not have time to go looking all over the entire www to correct this. I HOPE you can understand.

Peoples investments are not childs play to be misrepresented is all. Lets be adults.
With that, I have no problem.
 
Last edited:
:stupid: Sounds like a really complicated bungle of software to me. I must completely agree with outlawmws because I cannot ever remember having the band members surrounding me at a live performance nor would I ever want to try to make it sound that way. I think most of us here are quite happy with our 2 channel systems and I am sure many of us also delight in watching a good movie using decent 5.1 channel surround but as far as trying to reach some sort of audio nirvana with ever complex computer manipulated soundtracks, I do not think anyone short of Bill Gates would be interested :no:

Unless you can provide an affordable magic box for all to see and hear this is just an exercise in mumbo jumbo and yes I did look at all 36 pages of the white papers and find a few pearls of wisdom relating to humans enjoying amplified sound!!! I'll stick to that thought and enjoy my 70's gear and yup 60's speakers right out of a discoteque!!

It was an interesting read however and a great idea I am sure but the cost seems to me to be prohibitive for something undeveloped. But then again who knows, we may all be hearing your name again someday as having been a driving force behind something truly revolutionary. Best of luck to you in your quest.
 
It is pretty confusing, without doubt. One thing to consider, this is not a form of "surround sound, it is an instrument placement protocol. The experiments do not incorporate sound "behind you" but sound placed in "points in space" in front of you at various degrees of depth without the pseudo imaging that happens with dual mono creating a "phantom image". Stereo is truly dual mono. When two stereo loudspeakers play an identical sound at the same time (same phase) the "phantom image" should be dead center. Instead of "phantom images", we are dealing with "virtual images" which can be displaced in layers before you. The active acoustics or "macro control" is one of the factors that control spacial display. The "micro" control is that of direct energy "beamed" where the "macro" control, controls the placement. With this type of control, the user can "place" the instrumentation wherever they decide. If course the protocols to place the instruments in their "natural mixed" posotions would be much more desireable. If someone wants to have placement behind them, it is possible but in two channel audio, we naturally do not have rearward sound! Nor want it!!!

Some albums with the "q" sound protocol can present "phantom images" behind the listener (although weak and undefined due to physics) due to phase relationships.

Phase is an important part. Positioning with multi ampifiers and multisources within a single spherical device or multiple devices in front of you in conjunction with active acoustics is one part of the papers that needs to be understood.

Comparing this to "surround sound" is like comparing a tricycle to a concorde.

Remember, the ambience signals that "may" be derived and placed toward the rear in surround sound is usually a very fake and improperly implemented fact of surround sound. This is far from it.

Control of the acoustic environment will give the user exactly what they are looking for. We are concentrating on "frontal sound". The pictures in the papers are for "layman understanding" (although they don't seem to be working well) where if you look at all of the pictures, many are a demonstration of what has been "wrong" with audio and the practioner of surround sound certainly has not been happy with surround sound. True layering without relying on phantom images parallels an actual performance.
 
Last edited:
So I am right in saying that this is computer maniupulation of sound?? Is this to be incorporated within a single piece of equipment?? and how many drivers does this require in say a typical living room of medium size??
 
So I am right in saying that this is computer maniupulation of sound??
Click to expand...

Absolutely! (we cringe..the horror....) :)

Is this to be incorporated within a single piece of equipment??
Click to expand...


Much more than a single piece. Capture, transfer and reproduction. is the full system. Receive, transfer, reproduce is the system to be used with exsisting sources (CD,Tape, Phono etc..) User control is incorporated in the transfer function.

Look over this paper of the 3 papers.


Link


and how many drivers does this require in say a typical living room of medium size??
Click to expand...


I will go out on a limb here but so far, experimentation suggest each sphere contails a minimum of 16 drivers, a minimum of 3 spheres. this would be 48 drivers for the Micro transfer alone. Of course, depending on the protocol, for an instant, looking at the bass drum for example up to 70% of the drivers may be directed for the initial strike of this instrument.

This size has not been built.

Scaling this for a home environment is way down the list at this time. A larger scale example is first on the agenda.

Then you have the Macro function. This is "area" instead of the number of drivers. Panel loudspeakers seem to be a promising avenue. You want to cover a larger area per driver. Of course, this still has areas of experimentation open. Considering how much work their is to do, their are no absolute requirements established as far as numbers of drivers. The transfer function and the reproduction function certainly will consider a full 10+ octave range with 100dB+ of dynamic range. 17hz is a practical low frequency limit whereas 22Khz seems to be the number to shoot for in flat powerband output.
 
Last edited:
Given what I now know of this, I would expect this to be of interest to those wanting to have Areosmith perform for them without the need for the bandmembers to be present because you could place them wherever you wanted and hear them as if they were there :banana: provided you had a room large enough to hold all this equipment, had the money, had the know how to operate it and last but not least were able to go out and purchase it if and when it is constructed. I do not see any other use for it on the scale you speak of with the exception of Disneyworld etc.

At least I got you to boil it down for us past all the technical jargon, before this I really had no clue as to what it was other than what is was you expected it would do when built.

Time for bed and nightmares of Hal the computer from 2001 and 50 drivers in my living room giving me cancer due to electromagnetic overload :yikes:
 
Mobil Home

This is the easy part. . . Let the Mobile Home people get it. . .LOL. . .private joke. . .

Competition. . .I see it now. . . Samsung, Emerson or the like "Real Player" a whole new meaning. . .



Roberts said:
:)

I agree, miniturazation will be an uphill battle. With time and money, a lot is possible!
Click to expand...
 
Roberts and/or moderators: What happened to my attachemnt on the previous page? Granted, I had cut it from one of the Integral Transference white papers, so maybe it isn't strictly my right to post it. Now it has vanished without a trace. What's up?

- Harald
 
Another question: Are there patents granted for part of this technology? If so, which patent numbers? Just curious.

- Harald
 
This is all well & good, but honestly, at 47, my hearing's prolly not good enuff anymore to do this justice.-Sandy G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom