Stereo imaging comes from...where?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Hey all;

Well I've been playing with my stereo and a test CD lately. Turns out
that my CD player's outputs are SLIGHTLY different--left channel is a
few percent louder. My preamp, on the other hand, is moderately out of
balance in the opposite direction. One of my amps is substantially off
(an ancient and unrepaired Heathkit), whereas the others are dead on--
after fixing the preamp output levels.

But it's very interesting. I found that matching the output voltage across
the speaker terminals of the amp very carefully made a _substantial_
difference in my ability to place artists and instruments. It got me
wondering if in fact, much of the stereo imaging ability that people
attribute to amps and preamps is in fact tied directly to the balance
between the channels.

Has anyone got some thoughts on this? And am I completely off base here?
For that matter, how unmatched are amplifier channels typically, at the
various levels (mass-market, mid-fi, audiophile, and insane)?

Colin

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <40bff4df_1@news.>,
"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:

> Hey all;
>
> Well I've been playing with my stereo and a test CD lately. Turns out
> that my CD player's outputs are SLIGHTLY different--left channel is a
> few percent louder. My preamp, on the other hand, is moderately out of
> balance in the opposite direction. One of my amps is substantially off
> (an ancient and unrepaired Heathkit), whereas the others are dead on--
> after fixing the preamp output levels.
>
> But it's very interesting. I found that matching the output voltage across
> the speaker terminals of the amp very carefully made a _substantial_
> difference in my ability to place artists and instruments. It got me
> wondering if in fact, much of the stereo imaging ability that people
> attribute to amps and preamps is in fact tied directly to the balance
> between the channels.
>
> Has anyone got some thoughts on this? And am I completely off base here?
> For that matter, how unmatched are amplifier channels typically, at the
> various levels (mass-market, mid-fi, audiophile, and insane)?
>
> Colin

Amplitude is one factor and phase is the other. They both need to be
reasonably accurate for clear imaging.

Speaker placement is usually the biggest factor. Echoes in the room can
improve or hurt the imaging, depending on how they line up and what kind
of music you're listening to. It something that's best improved through
experimentation.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <40bff4df_1@news.>,
Colin B. <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>But it's very interesting. I found that matching the output voltage across
>the speaker terminals of the amp very carefully made a _substantial_
>difference in my ability to place artists and instruments. It got me
>wondering if in fact, much of the stereo imaging ability that people
>attribute to amps and preamps is in fact tied directly to the balance
>between the channels.

Left/right imaging comes from volume and time differences.

Vertical imaging comes at least partly from frequency response (you hear height
from the interaction of the direct sound and floor reflection).

Volume increases/decreases can be perceived as depth changes.

>For that matter, how unmatched are amplifier channels typically, at the
>various levels (mass-market, mid-fi, audiophile, and insane)?

Asymetric rooms also cause substantial (a few dB) frequency dependant level
differences.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Georg Grosz wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<i-SdnafdQY6t8V3dRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
>
>> by a ca. $1 chip that also does 4-12 other things as well.
>
> Okay, my curiosity is piqued. Any idea of makers, other than the
> obvious National Semiconductor? I was just about to design an
> all-analog preamp, but something with digital control might be much
> simpler and maybe more reliable.

Off the top of my head:

Crystal Semiconductor has a high-quality chip called the CS 3310. Dallas
Semiconductor, Phillips, Toshiba, Sanyo, etc. There are also a number of DAC
chips with built-in volume controls.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@p-we.com> wrote in message
news:40d0b190$0$9524$a0ced6e1@news.skynet.be...
>
> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:mcmurtri-EF4853.23504103062004@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> > In article <40bff4df_1@news.>,
> > "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all;
> > >
> > > Well I've been playing with my stereo and a test CD lately. Turns out
> > > that my CD player's outputs are SLIGHTLY different--left channel is a
> > > few percent louder. My preamp, on the other hand, is moderately out of
> > > balance in the opposite direction. One of my amps is substantially off
> > > (an ancient and unrepaired Heathkit), whereas the others are dead on--
> > > after fixing the preamp output levels.
> > >
> > > But it's very interesting. I found that matching the output voltage
> across
> > > the speaker terminals of the amp very carefully made a _substantial_
> > > difference in my ability to place artists and instruments. It got me
> > > wondering if in fact, much of the stereo imaging ability that people
> > > attribute to amps and preamps is in fact tied directly to the balance
> > > between the channels.
> > >
> > > Has anyone got some thoughts on this? And am I completely off base
here?
> > > For that matter, how unmatched are amplifier channels typically, at
the
> > > various levels (mass-market, mid-fi, audiophile, and insane)?
> > >
> > > Colin
> >
> > Amplitude is one factor and phase is the other. They both need to be
> > reasonably accurate for clear imaging.
> >
> > Speaker placement is usually the biggest factor. Echoes in the room can
> > improve or hurt the imaging, depending on how they line up and what kind
> > of music you're listening to. It something that's best improved through
> > experimentation.
>
> Your brain computes sonic positioning primarily in 3 ways:
>
> Temporal differences (different time of arrival between both ears, this is
> the main reason for stereo obviously)
> Amplitude differences (if something is close it's louder)
> Spectral differences (high frequencies decay more in amplitude per unit
> distance than low frequencies, so if something is close it's brighter)

This is true, but very few stereo recordings make use of this imaging mode.
With multi-track recording techniques, most tracks are mono, and they pan
them to the desired position. Balance controls work the same way. They just
vary the relative loudness of the channels. Binaural recordings and a few
"genuine" stereo recordings preserve phase information. I wish there were
more of these...

> There are few other factors but these rely on interpretation from hearing
> things before, your "sonic memory" as it were, and this from an other part
> of the brain that is way too interpretive and also responsible for the
> heated audiophile debates.
>
> So, to be a good imaging speaker, it must do everything right. It's got a
> neutral frequency response, doesn't compress, and has a good phase profile
> (there are some that say that only a neutral (linear) phase profile will
do)
> Obviously having the pair matched will have it's temporal advantages.
>
> Wessel
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:33:05 GMT, "Karl Uppiano"
<karl_uppiano@verizon.net> wrote:

>This is true, but very few stereo recordings make use of this imaging mode.
>With multi-track recording techniques, most tracks are mono, and they pan
>them to the desired position. Balance controls work the same way. They just
>vary the relative loudness of the channels. Binaural recordings and a few
>"genuine" stereo recordings preserve phase information. I wish there were
>more of these...

It could be said that ALL stereo recordings do. It's just that most
recordings are dual-channel pan-potted mono.

I'm surprised at the general indifference to real stereo. When
instruments are positioned in stereo space they retain their identity,
don't have to be destructively eq'd in order to make "room" in the
mix...

I'm sure the illusion of stereo could be synthesised even for
individually recorded tracks. But the commercial music industry seem
to have completely missed this area.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> On the subject of imaging, I've found that Densen's DeMagic CD is
> wonderful for setting your stereo back to neutral and getting its
> imaging back.

(snip!)

> Apparently the sound
> that it plays de-magnetizes the audio circuits it goes through,
> especially the speaker voicecoils and crossovers.

Cool! Does it demagnetise the air in the room as well? Or pair up free
ions?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<cb7gnj$15hd$1@news.interpublic.com>...
> On the subject of imaging, I've found that Densen's DeMagic CD is
> wonderful for setting your stereo back to neutral and getting its
> imaging back. Before I purchased it, I noticed that my speaker's imaging
> had gotten quite vague, and it was especially bnoticeable when playing
> mono. As a test, before DeMagic, I put my speakers less than 1 foot
> apart and played a signal in mono. As suspected, the central image was
> weak. With the speakers being so close together the image should have
> been practically set in stone. I ran the Demagic CD and imaging was
> restored. Now I play that CD once a week, especially before sitting down
> to some good music or watching a DVD.
>
> No, I don't sell Demagic, I'm just have great raves for it and want to
> share the love If you do get the CD, remember to play it as loud as is
> comfortable. You probably should leave the room and close the doors
> while it plays for 4 minutes. It isn't pleasant. Apparently the sound
> that it plays de-magnetizes the audio circuits it goes through,
> especially the speaker voicecoils and crossovers.

Codifus, could you please explain to us how a voice coil, made
of copper, aluminum, paper, plastic and adhesive, NON of which
are magnetic materials, can be demagnitized by this marvelous
contrivance. For that matter, can you explain how these non-
magnetic subtances get magnetized in the first place such that
they might require demagnetizing?

Could you also explain how the audio circuits, consisting of more
copper, silicon, fiberglass resins and other plastics, and all
these other NONmagnetic materials are demagnitized by this wonderful
device. And, for that matter, could you please explain how such NON
magnetic materials got magnetized in the first place?

Let's simplify the question somewhat:

How does a NONmagnetic object, like a voice coil, get
magnetized?

What benefit is there to demagnetize an object that can't
be magnetized to begin with?

The answers to these question, I am most certain, will reveal
truly what magic is. Let's see, from Webster's we read:

ma gic 1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells)
believed to have supernatural power over natural
forces, b: magic rites or incantations, 2 a: an
extraordinary power or influence seemingly from
a supernatural source, b: something which seems
to cast a spell, 3: the art of producing illusions
by sleight of hand

Please help us out here, if you would kindly do so, when a Densen
DeMagic CD demagnetizes objects that can't be magnetized to
begin with, what kind of magic it use:

1. Charms?
2. Rites and incantations
3. Supernatural sources?
4. Casting of spells
5. Illusion by sleight of hand?

To those who have the instrumentation and know how, and I humbly
include myself among them having designed and measured voice
coils and audio circuits of many persuasions, to measure static
and dynmaically varying magnetizations of objects with great
sensitivity, how would I know when a non-magnetizable object is
magnetized? How would I know when a magnetized non-magnetizable
becomes demagnetized? Basically, what's the difference between:

1. An unmagnetized nonmagnetizable object
2. A magnetized nonmagnetizable object
3. A demagnetized nonmagnetizable object

Or is, it, uhm, "magic?"

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@p-we.com> wrote in message news:<40d0b190$0$9524
> Your brain computes sonic positioning primarily in 3 ways:
>
> Temporal differences (different time of arrival between both ears, this is
> the main reason for stereo obviously)
> Amplitude differences (if something is close it's louder)
> Spectral differences (high frequencies decay more in amplitude per unit
> distance than low frequencies, so if something is close it's brighter)
>
> There are few other factors but these rely on interpretation from hearing
> things before, your "sonic memory" as it were, and this from an other part
> of the brain that is way too interpretive and also responsible for the
> heated audiophile debates.
>
> So, to be a good imaging speaker, it must do everything right. It's got a
> neutral frequency response, doesn't compress, and has a good phase profile
> (there are some that say that only a neutral (linear) phase profile will do)
> Obviously having the pair matched will have it's temporal advantages.
>
> Wessel
_____________
Good show Wess-

And to the point on the temporal issue, I'd dare anyone on this thread
to believe that their ears are prefectly parrallel to each other.
That is, one ear is not slightly to the rear of the other, as measured
through the skull.
IE if your left ear is even 0.5MM! forward of your right, the left
channel of just about anything you listen to, except headphones, will
*seem* louder, 'cause the sound is reaching it first. And vice versa
for the right.

Not to mention that one ear canal may also be deeper than the other,
or that the angle down the canals may vary slightly, and on and on but
I'm wearing my fingers ount typign her so, hopin' yor news is good
wews, GOONIGHT!

-CC

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"ChrisCoaster" <ckozicki@snet.net> wrote in message
news:77a787ce.0406241712.28a69b36@posting.google.com...
> "Wessel Dirksen" <wdirksen@p-we.com> wrote in message
news:<40d0b190$0$9524
> > Your brain computes sonic positioning primarily in 3 ways:
> >
> > Temporal differences (different time of arrival between both ears, this
is
> > the main reason for stereo obviously)
> > Amplitude differences (if something is close it's louder)
> > Spectral differences (high frequencies decay more in amplitude per unit
> > distance than low frequencies, so if something is close it's brighter)
> >
> > There are few other factors but these rely on interpretation from
hearing
> > things before, your "sonic memory" as it were, and this from an other
part
> > of the brain that is way too interpretive and also responsible for the
> > heated audiophile debates.
> >
> > So, to be a good imaging speaker, it must do everything right. It's got
a
> > neutral frequency response, doesn't compress, and has a good phase
profile
> > (there are some that say that only a neutral (linear) phase profile will
do)
> > Obviously having the pair matched will have it's temporal advantages.
> >
> > Wessel
> _____________
> Good show Wess-
>
> And to the point on the temporal issue, I'd dare anyone on this thread
> to believe that their ears are prefectly parrallel to each other.
> That is, one ear is not slightly to the rear of the other, as measured
> through the skull.
> IE if your left ear is even 0.5MM! forward of your right, the left
> channel of just about anything you listen to, except headphones, will
> *seem* louder, 'cause the sound is reaching it first. And vice versa
> for the right.
>
> Not to mention that one ear canal may also be deeper than the other,
> or that the angle down the canals may vary slightly, and on and on but
> I'm wearing my fingers ount typign her so, hopin' yor news is good
> wews, GOONIGHT!

Yeah, wondering why the "demagnitized, vibration absorbed, non-diffractive,
non-inductive, calibrated head vice" hasn't been marketed yet. Then we would
really hear something interesting about phase relationships from Dick
Pierce.

But although relevant as you state, it doesn't appear to be quite that
sensitive but I don't think anybody knows for sure how much for hi-fi.
Directionality (vertical axis) is obviously quite sensitive because of
diffractive properties of the head. If you rotate your head too much, it
gets literally in the way of the ear in back. In the horizontal axis, once
"facing the sound" where the angle of plane of the ear axis is +/- few
degrees of the incident sound wave, you probably have a few centimeters of
leeway for important frequencies for imaging.

If I remember correctly, a part of the head related fransfer function (this
was addressed just recently in the Cables thread), the shape of the outer
ear "shell" does help to correct this to some degree with a "fresnel lens"
type of property focused at voice intelligability related frequencies (400
to 800 Hz). Also the sensitivity of phase differences is frequency dependant
according to the wavelength which gets smaller with increasing frequencies.
A 5cm change in signal path length represents only a 5 degree shift in phase
at 100 Hz, but at 1000 Hz, 5cm represents +/- 540 deg (a complete 360 deg
jump + 180 deg out of phase)

Interesting is that the characteristics of our ears indicates that they were
naturally selected for communication with each other and not for being the
ultimate wilderness survival tool like some other animals. Can you imagine
how good your stereo would sound if you were a dog?

Good Fun. Wessel

> -CC

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Dick Pierce wrote:
> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<cb7gnj$15hd$1@news.interpublic.com>...
>
>>On the subject of imaging, I've found that Densen's DeMagic CD is
>>wonderful for setting your stereo back to neutral and getting its
>>imaging back. Before I purchased it, I noticed that my speaker's imaging
>>had gotten quite vague, and it was especially bnoticeable when playing
>>mono. As a test, before DeMagic, I put my speakers less than 1 foot
>>apart and played a signal in mono. As suspected, the central image was
>>weak. With the speakers being so close together the image should have
>>been practically set in stone. I ran the Demagic CD and imaging was
>>restored. Now I play that CD once a week, especially before sitting down
>>to some good music or watching a DVD.
>>
>>No, I don't sell Demagic, I'm just have great raves for it and want to
>>share the love If you do get the CD, remember to play it as loud as is
>>comfortable. You probably should leave the room and close the doors
>>while it plays for 4 minutes. It isn't pleasant. Apparently the sound
>>that it plays de-magnetizes the audio circuits it goes through,
>>especially the speaker voicecoils and crossovers.
>
>
> Codifus, could you please explain to us how a voice coil, made
> of copper, aluminum, paper, plastic and adhesive, NON of which
> are magnetic materials, can be demagnitized by this marvelous
> contrivance. For that matter, can you explain how these non-
> magnetic subtances get magnetized in the first place such that
> they might require demagnetizing?
>
> Could you also explain how the audio circuits, consisting of more
> copper, silicon, fiberglass resins and other plastics, and all
> these other NONmagnetic materials are demagnitized by this wonderful
> device. And, for that matter, could you please explain how such NON
> magnetic materials got magnetized in the first place?
>
> Let's simplify the question somewhat:
>
> How does a NONmagnetic object, like a voice coil, get
> magnetized?
>
> What benefit is there to demagnetize an object that can't
> be magnetized to begin with?
>
> The answers to these question, I am most certain, will reveal
> truly what magic is. Let's see, from Webster's we read:
>
> ma gic 1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells)
> believed to have supernatural power over natural
> forces, b: magic rites or incantations, 2 a: an
> extraordinary power or influence seemingly from
> a supernatural source, b: something which seems
> to cast a spell, 3: the art of producing illusions
> by sleight of hand
>
> Please help us out here, if you would kindly do so, when a Densen
> DeMagic CD demagnetizes objects that can't be magnetized to
> begin with, what kind of magic it use:
>
> 1. Charms?
> 2. Rites and incantations
> 3. Supernatural sources?
> 4. Casting of spells
> 5. Illusion by sleight of hand?
>
> To those who have the instrumentation and know how, and I humbly
> include myself among them having designed and measured voice
> coils and audio circuits of many persuasions, to measure static
> and dynmaically varying magnetizations of objects with great
> sensitivity, how would I know when a non-magnetizable object is
> magnetized? How would I know when a magnetized non-magnetizable
> becomes demagnetized? Basically, what's the difference between:
>
> 1. An unmagnetized nonmagnetizable object
> 2. A magnetized nonmagnetizable object
> 3. A demagnetized nonmagnetizable object
>
> Or is, it, uhm, "magic?"
I just hear it, so it's not really magic. Whatever the
electrical/magnetic explanation may be, I heard from my speakers a much
better defined image, especially with the mono test. Also, with my basic
understanding of electronics, anything that can carry an electrical
charge will also have an associated magnetic field. If I remember
correctly, the associated magnetic field is always at right angles to
the electrical field. That's a basic law of Physics.

When I ran DeMagic for the 1st time it was very very noticeable on my
system. So after 3 years of use, the circuits in my system must have
become all out of whack magnetically. The other times, The effect is
much more subltle, if it's there at all, but since I know it worked the
first time, it must be doing a little something each time I use it. it's
only $20 and you buy it once, so how much snake oil can it really be?

For those of you with systems that have been in use a couple of years or
so, I dare you to try it. Do the mono test I described earlier first
before running Demagic. You will hear the difference in imaging.

When I ran it in my car stereo, the most noticeable change was that bass
became much much better defined, less loose and vague. I didn't notice
imaging so much, but then my car stereo does not have the ideal
positioning for imaging with the front main speakers by my ankles

CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

OK, you're going to get a LOT of flak on this one. Let me point out a
few obvious points.

> I just hear it, so it's not really magic. Whatever the
> electrical/magnetic explanation may be, I heard from my speakers a much
> better defined image, especially with the mono test. Also, with my basic
> understanding of electronics, anything that can carry an electrical
> charge will also have an associated magnetic field. If I remember
> correctly, the associated magnetic field is always at right angles to
> the electrical field. That's a basic law of Physics.

Please don't argue with physics if you don't understand the subject.

1) How do you quantify image definition?
2) How do you do controlled tests on this system?
3) What does the instantaneous magnetic field have to do with long-term
magnetisation?

Basically, you're using your partial opinions in an uncontrolled listening
scenario to claim a change in an undefined value, and then retroactively
applying bad science to justify it.

Is there a difference in what you hear? Absolutely--you heard a difference,
your perception of the sound is different!
Is there a difference in the sound itself? If it can't be measured and can't
be reproduced in a controlled setting, then no.

In other words, all of the differences, while very real, have occurred
between your eardrum and your brain.

> much more subltle, if it's there at all, but since I know it worked the
> first time, it must be doing a little something each time I use it. it's
> only $20 and you buy it once, so how much snake oil can it really be?

Well, it can't be any more than 100% snake oil. Although if you treat it
with my green marker, I can increase the concentration above 100%.

> For those of you with systems that have been in use a couple of years or
> so, I dare you to try it. Do the mono test I described earlier first
> before running Demagic. You will hear the difference in imaging.

I'd love to do so, in a controlled environment. "Imaging" is an unmeasurable
term though, as it stands, so the only way to determine if it works is in a
double-blind test. Not that easy to do when the 'treatment' affects an
entire system.

Colin

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Colin B. wrote:
> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> OK, you're going to get a LOT of flak on this one. Let me point out a
> few obvious points.
Flak from you.

>
>
>>I just hear it, so it's not really magic. Whatever the
>>electrical/magnetic explanation may be, I heard from my speakers a much
>>better defined image, especially with the mono test. Also, with my basic
>>understanding of electronics, anything that can carry an electrical
>>charge will also have an associated magnetic field. If I remember
>>correctly, the associated magnetic field is always at right angles to
>>the electrical field. That's a basic law of Physics.
>
>
> Please don't argue with physics if you don't understand the subject.
I'm not arguing with physics. I was stating why Densen's reasoning was
beleivable in my view. Besides, I wasn't wrong about the relationship
between electricity and magnetism, was I? Your clever reply tries to
suggest I'm wrong, yet one of the prvious posters said, and did not
imply, that magnetism wasn't involved in this issue, and that's
completely wrong. Anywhere there's electricity, there's magnetism. You
don't need to be Einstein to understand that basic law.
>
> 1) How do you quantify image definition?
> 2) How do you do controlled tests on this system?
> 3) What does the instantaneous magnetic field have to do with long-term
> magnetisation?
>
> Basically, you're using your partial opinions in an uncontrolled listening
> scenario to claim a change in an undefined value, and then retroactively
> applying bad science to justify it.
>
> Is there a difference in what you hear? Absolutely--you heard a difference,
> your perception of the sound is different!
> Is there a difference in the sound itself? If it can't be measured and can't
> be reproduced in a controlled setting, then no.
>
> In other words, all of the differences, while very real, have occurred
> between your eardrum and your brain.
No, the differences aren't in my head. Like I said earlier, the
difference was very apparent the 1st time I used it. After that, what it
was doing was probably much harder to detect, simply because I did not
let my system stay so long without running it. And yes, imaging is very
very subjective. I've known lots of people who claim they're into
stereos, and from 2 seconds of me walking by their system to instantly
hear that their speakers are wired out of phase, that tells me otherwise.

>
>
>>much more subltle, if it's there at all, but since I know it worked the
>>first time, it must be doing a little something each time I use it. it's
>>only $20 and you buy it once, so how much snake oil can it really be?
>
>
> Well, it can't be any more than 100% snake oil. Although if you treat it
> with my green marker, I can increase the concentration above 100%.
Go ahead and be a cynic if it works for you.

>
>
>>For those of you with systems that have been in use a couple of years or
>>so, I dare you to try it. Do the mono test I described earlier first
>>before running Demagic. You will hear the difference in imaging.
>
>
> I'd love to do so, in a controlled environment. "Imaging" is an unmeasurable
> term though, as it stands, so the only way to determine if it works is in a
> double-blind test. Not that easy to do when the 'treatment' affects an
> entire system.
In a controlled environment, I'm sure the results would be even more
apparent, but you don't need to go that far.
>
> Colin

CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Codifus wrote:

> is very very subjective. I've known lots of people who claim they're
> into stereos, and from 2 seconds of me walking by their system to
> instantly hear that their speakers are wired out of phase, that tells
> me otherwise.

That's odd, because it's pretty obvious to most here that yours certainly
were at one point.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <aEGDc.5075$NA1.472197@news02.tsnz.net>,
"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

> cyrus wrote:
>
> > It's funny that so many people are worried about buying expensive
> > audio gear when the weakest link in the chain is attached to the
> > sides of every human's head.
> ]
>
> WRONG ! There is in many cases a far weaker link between those organs.
>
> geoff
>
>

hehe Or the grey matter, I agree.

--
cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*