ha ha ha
Ok, up to this point my "main problem" is that what I can let happen is about some unknown phenomenon so far. Physics tell me that what happens can't be, and I even set myself to be persistent in *when that would ever happen* I would disagree with it. IOW, something can now happen which physics don't allow (in my thinking) and which could be something revolutionary.
The appliance itself is a rather "dull" one, and its impact can be dedicated (my me !) to being able to happen to the NOS1 only. This is a bit doubtful, but since I never heard such a thing before, let's say it is.
And from there I must proceed in reasoning out what is actually happening.
I can tell you a little secret already, but let's call it a :teaser: :
What happens is completely 100% contradictionary to what we "learned" from what is good audio reproduction. But, it didn't take me 12 hours or so to reason out that what I perceive from it actually is better. Example of what I mean (completely made up, so it is not about this at all) :
We learned that two speakers are needed to more or less reproduce an image; a stage. Now I can do it with one speaker, the image is not at all what we expect from it, but after 12 hours of sitting back I can tell you (*and* you will accept it as the truth) that indeed this IS better.
Remember, completly made up this one, but it is close.
Because the net workout is better, but completely against our nature, plus it seems to be against my own thinking of how things acoustically should / can work, it needs quite some time and reasoning HOW it can do what it does. On this matter, think Blackbodies. They sure do something, but like with our fameous Schumann Resonator, they may do things to us instead of physically change sound. Those little copper/silver/gold/platinum bells are a bit in between, but sure allow to physically alter sound (whether it really does - I wonder). The Bybees *will* alter sound. Is it for the better ? possibly, but not necessarily. And here things become vague, because like with "better cables" (which fillter), when the base ain't right, the result most probably will be strange.
"My" tweak is from the latter category, but most different in its appliance. More mystique, although everybody who hears about it later will disagree with this at first. So, the appliance and reason for it is no mystery at all; the workout is though. And again, especially because it does things which are opposite to what we all learned.
Because I like to have written down what my thoughts are before knowing (and nobody knows !!), I see it as a physically mixing of air - hence sound waves, like putting some Hammond organ rotors in front of your speakers. Again it is not this at all, but you will start to feel that this may seem to sound for the better, but it can't be correct in the mean time. How can interrupting the sound wave like this work out for the better ? Still it seems to do just that (IMO !) with now the question of why. If I can find the answer to that (and confirm it technically), *then* it really IS better. During the stage of finding out it is just a subjective thing.
Because the working is so strange and unknown, I am indeed afraid that anything can kill it. It doesn't seem fragile to me, but it interacts. Yea, but now : with what ? (this is the so far unknown part).
Ok, Paul, *of course* I better think the other way around, and of course I already anticipate on the combination of Bybees and our little subject here. But I really can't see what will be happening, unless something catching fire which really seems more obvious to me than again better sound. Also, my definition of "better sound" has gone for a while now, and all now merely is about what the heck all happens physically to let this and that show, while *all* sounds good enough already; Things can be tweaked into "different" very easily, but none is really wrong as such.
One more little story to get you hot (and your wife of course) :
Ever back in my previous house I was able to let Q-sound (Amused to Death, Immaculate Collection) work in open air as intended for headphones. So, instruments and voices at plain 90 degree angles up to 180 degrees behind you. Totally crazy, and it didn't need to be at any sweetspot at all. Just 6 meters sideways and you could still point at the instruments in open air (more people would point at the same position, those people being meters apart from eachother). Now :
I had this working (which was a kind by accident) by some type of SS amplifier (Duson, which was dutch and a take over from French Audio Analyse IIRC) and let's say it happened after 5 years of tweaking with ground wires between devices, and all other stuff we can think of, like special feet, filters, what not.
Then there was broken in, and my amp was stolen.
Ensurance paid well for it all, and because some things could not be replaced by te same (they were obsolete) I was able to save some money at the new purchase, and thought to biamp - hence bought two of the same 2ch amps where before I had one only.
Nothing in the world could let work that Q-sound again. It didn't want to anymore.
Then I found out that it didn't want to work with two amps. One still worked ! Ok, so this lead me to thinking that things must way way fragile, and possibly things from the two amps didn't want to play in the same beat. Voltage regulators influencing the sound, but now two of them with their own life. Something like that.
From there I thought about the setup of the biamping, and while it may be coming to use each amp for left and right but for bass only, and the other one for mid-high only, this can also be done with one amp per channel.
Long story short, including all the normal tweaks again but in a different setup (ground wires running different paths), I think it took me two months before it worked again.
Byyyy the wayy, the concept of the NOS1 contains this concept to some degree.
I moved to a new house some 8 years back, and up to today I never got Q-sound working in open air again. I dedicate it to the acoustics of the room, and maybe the special shape of the wooden ceiling I had in my former house. But hey, I know how difficult this was in the first, and that too many parameters influence to ever get it right again. Actually, the only thing I know is that it *can* work, because I had it working.
In the mean time, in emphasis, this is why I spend quite some time on writing stories like these; it could be an interesting read - it could be a lot of blahblah towards you - but in the mean time it allows me my necessary reasoning in a kind of official fashion; I just found out a "crux" during this writing; watch this :Those two main amps in my old house were on top of eachother. Normal biamping is about the left part of each amp for the left channel and the right part for the right. So, each amp serves both channels. N.b.: The interaction of electronics of the before story may remain. But :
What also happens when each amp starts to be dedicated for its own channel (so one amp for left only, the other for right only), is that left and right will influence eachother in a consistent fashion. Think vibrations. Micro of course, but we all know it exists (microphonic). And since the amps were on top of eachother, their mutual influence could work. This, for one thing, I never applied in my new house, and instead the amps were on the floor way close to their respective speaker.
By now, after this long writing, I suddenly see a same application happening with the little tweak I'm talking about. Its behaviour looks (sounds) the same ... and didn't I talk about "mixing". Yes I did, and I honestly didn't know how this post would end up. So indeed, sound is mixed in a mechanichal way, and it sure looks like my two amps influencing eachother in a similar mechanichal way.
I'm sure you now can feel how delicate this is, and how anything can break it. As I said, the application by itself is robust, but the workout maybe is not at all. It *is* how electronics can be influenced and so far I am quite sure this is NOT about eliminating influences, like we could do by means of decoupling. It just doesn't sound like that, and furthermore the effect is the opposite from the theory. But I *did* say that after some thinking I will be able to point out that the effect is for the better. When I tell you about it, you will have to agree.
First I must test some more, to see whether there are downsides. Brain damaging perhaps, because something like that really could be in order ...
Peter (sorry for typos; I didn't look back)
