Amateur speaker designer/builder, DSP programmer.

System: my own three-way speakers with linear phase, DSP active crossovers, driver correction, time alignment, calculated in-room EQ to compensate for directivity characteristics. I wrote the DSP software in 'C' using the FFTW library to perform the filtering and convolution; it runs on Linux.

I seem to be the only person around here who is sceptical of all of the following:
  • in-room measurements and target frequency responses
  • room correction
  • listening tests
  • the statistics used in audio experiments
  • (pseudo)science
  • dipole speakers
  • horns
  • bass reflex
  • frequency domain-based thinking
What does that leave? Well, it leaves speakers and systems that are purposely designed to behave very simply - not that the hardware or software is necessarily simple.

I am an audio optimist. Not only have audiophiles got it wrong if they believe that room correction and target frequency responses are valid, they are spreading their misery to those who would otherwise not have worried about such things.

And the same goes for stereo. People in the 1970s believed that stereo was a semi-holographic rendering of a real soundstage, but the pessimists of audio have decreed that it can't be because of acoustic crosstalk to the 'wrong' ear, thus ruining the experience for audiophiles who now think they must be deluding themselves about what they hear.

However, a closer examination of Blumlein stereo reveals that the crosstalk is what produces an actual, physical, stable time-of-arrival difference at the listener's ears. The audiophiles of the 1970s had it exactly right but few people today can allow themselves to believe it.
Dec 18, 1963 (Age: 55)
Electronics engineer


Digital audio is a rare example of perfect technology; it has given audiophiles everything they wanted. But now they're bored...


Top Bottom