Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="helotaxi" data-source="post: 2644925" data-attributes="member: 550915">Point taken but there&#039;s a big difference between the uneducated doing what they&#039;ve done for years and the well educated thinking the book has all the answers.&nbsp; Structural engineering is one thing.&nbsp; The engineer is most always right, physics being what they are and all; however as soon as you throw human perception into the mix, the books are usually split down the middle or in a ton of different places.&nbsp; For every reference you find saying that this is percieved in such and such a way, you can find several more saying not only the polar opposite but also the entire spectrum in between.&nbsp; Fact is the human ear makes a shitty reference instrument.&nbsp; What the &quot;average person&quot; percieves one way when it comes to audio or localization, someone particularly attuned to what they are listening to and for may hear it entierly differently.&nbsp; Tactile sensation is not needed to get localization cues, clearly, but if tactile transfer is present it CAN alter the perception of the origin of a sound.You have theoretical&nbsp; support for your argument, HH has his experience and that of others.&nbsp; He&#039;s telling you straight up what he&#039;s observed and relating what others have observed.&nbsp; That is real world.&nbsp; You are referencing studies that are partially applicable at best and based on that theory that you have read rather than observed first hand, dismissing him out of hand.&nbsp; How is that not jumping to conclusions?&nbsp; How is that not reality vs. theory?Sounds to me like you skipped the first couple pages.&nbsp; My comments also aren&#039;t in reference just this thread.&nbsp; If you think that a college eduaction makes you the de facto expert in all fields you need to go back to school.&nbsp; I won&#039;t tell you how to build a bridge or whatever it is you do, you probably shouldn&#039;t be trying to tell HH how to make the best sounding cars out there.&nbsp; He&#039;s not alone in his methods, and trust me just about every location for a midbass speaker has been tried.&nbsp; The fact is that if thy are in the back, you can tell.&nbsp; Turn up the sub crossover and you can that it&#039;s behind you.&nbsp; You don&#039;t even have to get it up that high.&nbsp; If midbass was as lacking in localization cues as you seem to believe it to be, how is it that running a single midbass with a summed signal messes up the stereo image?&nbsp; The books tells you that this isn&#039;t the case but ask an experienced stereo installer, not just a mobile installer either.&nbsp; Know-it-all engineers, not even ammusing at their best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="helotaxi, post: 2644925, member: 550915"] Point taken but there's a big difference between the uneducated doing what they've done for years and the well educated thinking the book has all the answers. Structural engineering is one thing. The engineer is most always right, physics being what they are and all; however as soon as you throw human perception into the mix, the books are usually split down the middle or in a ton of different places. For every reference you find saying that this is percieved in such and such a way, you can find several more saying not only the polar opposite but also the entire spectrum in between. Fact is the human ear makes a shitty reference instrument. What the "average person" percieves one way when it comes to audio or localization, someone particularly attuned to what they are listening to and for may hear it entierly differently. Tactile sensation is not needed to get localization cues, clearly, but if tactile transfer is present it CAN alter the perception of the origin of a sound. You have theoretical support for your argument, HH has his experience and that of others. He's telling you straight up what he's observed and relating what others have observed. That is real world. You are referencing studies that are partially applicable at best and based on that theory that you have read rather than observed first hand, dismissing him out of hand. How is that not jumping to conclusions? How is that not reality vs. theory? Sounds to me like you skipped the first couple pages. My comments also aren't in reference just this thread. If you think that a college eduaction makes you the de facto expert in all fields you need to go back to school. I won't tell you how to build a bridge or whatever it is you do, you probably shouldn't be trying to tell HH how to make the best sounding cars out there. He's not alone in his methods, and trust me just about every location for a midbass speaker has been tried. The fact is that if thy are in the back, you can tell. Turn up the sub crossover and you can that it's behind you. You don't even have to get it up that high. If midbass was as lacking in localization cues as you seem to believe it to be, how is it that running a single midbass with a summed signal messes up the stereo image? The books tells you that this isn't the case but ask an experienced stereo installer, not just a mobile installer either. Know-it-all engineers, not even ammusing at their best. [/QUOTE]

Verification