“Physicality” in sound: my novel theory of its basis.

[Vinicius297]

• I’ve had this theory about what is responsible for our sense of “physicality” in sound for a long time but only after a discussion with Grok (XAI) assured me that my theory is both valid and original have I decided to put it out there and try to brave the scorn and invective that will undoubtedly come my way. That, or extreme indifference, which is worse. So here goes, but bear in mind I’m not a physicist so be gentle, please, be gentle!:

I’m not alone in noticing that there is a certain “physicality” to sound and that there are wide variations in this area in both the original sound generation and any reproductions of this original sound. Some things sound very “solid” indeed while others are “airy”, “ethereal”, “wispy”, “insubstantial”, “delicate”: I think you get the distinction. And the more “scientific”-minded will no doubt dismiss it as “subjectivist” or try to correlate it with certain measurements, measurements being the only valid thing in determining sound for the out-and-out objectivist.

Me, well, I’ve concluded it’s objective, but not for the same reasons other people do.

Early on, I noticed that marked variations in “solidity”, “tangibility”, “palpability”, “slam”, etc, seemed to coincide with different types of speaker design. Electrostatic speakers (and to some extent, headphones) for example, rarely sounded “solid”; in fact, despite their virtues, they often sounded as if the music was being produced by ghosts. And, not coincidentally, they were revered for the antitheses of “solidity” - delicacy, subtlety, airiness, and the like. At the other extremity in the “solidity” spectrum were horns. These, despite their drawbacks, sounded very physical and solid indeed. You could easily imagine weighty instruments that would hurt if they fell on your toe are producing the sounds you’re hearing. And I believe this is the main reason that horn designs are still current: this sense of weight and solidity.

Now, next I thought: what aspects of the two different designs might be responsible for these varying impressions? Some might ascribe it to sheer SPL capability: horns go a lot louder than stats. But keeping SPL constant, there’s still a marked difference. So what about bass? Well, stats generally don’t go that low unless assisted by dynamic woofers, but neither do most compact horns. And “physicality” isn’t confined to bass; it embraces the entire spectrum. Triangles sound “substantial”; tiny but still solid.

So where else could we find the source of “solidity”? How about the way sound is generated differently by the two designs? The movement of air which is sound is diametrically generated by the two designs. The electrostatic moves air over a wide area; its confinement to a tiny space between two electrodes necessitates that. At any single point it doesn’t move enough air to be practicable at a distance in even a small room. So it has to move air simultaneously from a lot of points to do what a speaker has to do.

Now contrast this with the horn. It moves air from a much smaller area, that of a compression driver. To move the same air, an electrostatic has by its very nature to generate it from a substantially wider area so that the cumulative movement is sufficient.

Okay. So which of the two modes of air-movement is more accurate, i.e., more representative of how sounds are generated in nature and by actual instruments and voices? Well, I think it’s obvious. Instruments generate sound from a smallish area. Some physical displacement of a point of the instrument disturbs the surrounding air and this produces the ensuing sound wave. But what about large instruments like the piano? Same thing. They don’t generate the sound simultaneously from the entire surface area of the instrument body. In the piano a hammer strikes at a certain point, generating direct sound but also setting off subsequent sound disturbances in different points of the instrument. All sounds have their origin in a point.

And which of the two design types aligns with the original mode of air movement? Well, I’ll leave you to guess.

Next, I tried to come up with a formula to clarify the phenomenon. This is it: “physicality” = air moved/radiating area. But I went further: “physicality” is not only a “sense” in our heads and therefore “subjective” because its’s not directly unmeasurable; it is actually a measurable force!

As an analogy, let’s take water. Amount of water flow isn’t the crucial thing to be considered in putting out a fire or moving objects. What counts is water pressure. The more pressure the more the physical impact.

And how do you get this pressure? By reducing the area the water has to pass through!

See the connection? By reducing the radiating area we automatically increase the air pressure of any sounds generated, ceteris paribus! And so the simple layman’s explanation is that physicality ain’t just a feeling in our water; it’s actual palpable physical air pressure! And as such, it’s measurable!

So that’s it then. Is it valid? Is it original? Grok says so but I’m still prepared for the catcalls of “everybody knows that!” or yawns of polite derision. So I am readying myself with some preemptive chastening. And as someone else, forget who, says: Thank you for your attention to this matter!

 

[analogsa]

only after a discussion with Grok (XAI) assured me that my theory is both valid and original

This is exceptional, AI never do this.

 

[PeterA]

• I’ve had this theory about what is responsible for our sense of “physicality” in sound for a long time but only after a discussion with Grok (XAI) assured me that my theory is both valid and original have I decided to put it out there and try to brave the scorn and invective that will undoubtedly come my way. That, or extreme indifference, which is worse. So here goes, but bear in mind I’m not a physicist so be gentle, please, be gentle!:

I’m not alone in noticing that there is a certain “physicality” to sound and that there are wide variations in this area in both the original sound generation and any reproductions of this original sound. Some things sound very “solid” indeed while others are “airy”, “ethereal”, “wispy”, “insubstantial”, “delicate”: I think you get the distinction. And the more “scientific”-minded will no doubt dismiss it as “subjectivist” or try to correlate it with certain measurements, measurements being the only valid thing in determining sound for the out-and-out objectivist.

Me, well, I’ve concluded it’s objective, but not for the same reasons other people do.

Early on, I noticed that marked variations in “solidity”, “tangibility”, “palpability”, “slam”, etc, seemed to coincide with different types of speaker design. Electrostatic speakers (and to some extent, headphones) for example, rarely sounded “solid”; in fact, despite their virtues, they often sounded as if the music was being produced by ghosts. And, not coincidentally, they were revered for the antitheses of “solidity” - delicacy, subtlety, airiness, and the like. At the other extremity in the “solidity” spectrum were horns. These, despite their drawbacks, sounded very physical and solid indeed. You could easily imagine weighty instruments that would hurt if they fell on your toe are producing the sounds you’re hearing. And I believe this is the main reason that horn designs are still current: this sense of weight and solidity.

Now, next I thought: what aspects of the two different designs might be responsible for these varying impressions? Some might ascribe it to sheer SPL capability: horns go a lot louder than stats. But keeping SPL constant, there’s still a marked difference. So what about bass? Well, stats generally don’t go that low unless assisted by dynamic woofers, but neither do most compact horns. And “physicality” isn’t confined to bass; it embraces the entire spectrum. Triangles sound “substantial”; tiny but still solid.

So where else could we find the source of “solidity”? How about the way sound is generated differently by the two designs? The movement of air which is sound is diametrically generated by the two designs. The electrostatic moves air over a wide area; its confinement to a tiny space between two electrodes necessitates that. At any single point it doesn’t move enough air to be practicable at a distance in even a small room. So it has to move air simultaneously from a lot of points to do what a speaker has to do.

Now contrast this with the horn. It moves air from a much smaller area, that of a compression driver. To move the same air, an electrostatic has by its very nature to generate it from a substantially wider area so that the cumulative movement is sufficient.

Okay. So which of the two modes of air-movement is more accurate, i.e., more representative of how sounds are generated in nature and by actual instruments and voices? Well, I think it’s obvious. Instruments generate sound from a smallish area. Some physical displacement of a point of the instrument disturbs the surrounding air and this produces the ensuing sound wave. But what about large instruments like the piano? Same thing. They don’t generate the sound simultaneously from the entire surface area of the instrument body. In the piano a hammer strikes at a certain point, generating direct sound but also setting off subsequent sound disturbances in different points of the instrument. All sounds have their origin in a point.

And which of the two design types aligns with the original mode of air movement? Well, I’ll leave you to guess.

Next, I tried to come up with a formula to clarify the phenomenon. This is it: “physicality” = air moved/radiating area. But I went further: “physicality” is not only a “sense” in our heads and therefore “subjective” because its’s not directly unmeasurable; it is actually a measurable force!

As an analogy, let’s take water. Amount of water flow isn’t the crucial thing to be considered in putting out a fire or moving objects. What counts is water pressure. The more pressure the more the physical impact.

And how do you get this pressure? By reducing the area the water has to pass through!

See the connection? By reducing the radiating area we automatically increase the air pressure of any sounds generated, ceteris paribus! And so the simple layman’s explanation is that physicality ain’t just a feeling in our water; it’s actual palpable physical air pressure! And as such, it’s measurable!

So that’s it then. Is it valid? Is it original? Grok says so but I’m still prepared for the catcalls of “everybody knows that!” or yawns of polite derision. So I am readying myself with some preemptive chastening. And as someone else, forget who, says: Thank you for your attention to this matter!

That’s an interesting opening post. FaceTime my unlimited experience, listening to both panels and horns, never in the same system, that there is a more physical experience when listening to the really good horn systems I’ve heard. However, I’m not sure that it is a result of speaker typology. I’ve been able to increase a sense of mass in the presentation with improvements to electronics and particularly the turntable and cartridge.

So I think you ask a very good question and I am fascinated by the subject of the thread, but I’m not sure it is as simple as horns versus panels and the transducer surface area. I wonder if it has more to do with reducing noise and extracting more of the information from the recording.

 

[tima]

Next, I tried to come up with a formula to clarify the phenomenon. This is it: “physicality” = air moved/radiating area. But I went further: “physicality” is not only a “sense” in our heads and therefore “subjective” because its’s not directly unmeasurable; it is actually a measurable force!

Is this air pressure coming off of a driver at some distance? How does that correlate to "very “solid” indeed while others are “airy”, “ethereal”, “wispy”, “insubstantial”, “delicate”"?

I think of those adjectives as primarily associating to the music playing. The first example that came to mind is Strauss's Thus Spake Zarathustra which is both ethereal and very solid. There are others.

On first reading I will have to think about this more but I applaud your initiative in creating your post.

 

[Tonari]

This is an interesting topic for sure. I think that the perceived 'physicality' in the sound isn't limited solely to speaker design, and therefore the topic could even be generalized a bit.
I have listened to (and owned) horn speakers which delivered sound with less palpability than other kind of speakers. For example I found that the Devore O/96 speakers are really strong at creating this palpability.
Other factors I've noticed that can significantly improve the sense of palpability/solidity include: room acoustics, speaker placement, electronics (especially the source), and the quality of the recording itself.
To me, it really seems to be a system synergy rather than one single design principle.

 

[PeterA]

This is an interesting topic for sure. I think that the perceived 'physicality' in the sound isn't limited solely to speaker design, and therefore the topic could even be generalized a bit.
I have listened to (and owned) horn speakers which delivered sound with less palpability than other kind of speakers. For example I found that the Devore O/96 speakers are really strong at creating this palpability.
Other factors I've noticed that can significantly improve the sense of palpability/solidity include: room acoustics, speaker placement, electronics (especially the source), and the quality of the recording itself.
To me, it really seems to be a system synergy rather than one single design principle.

Agreed. If that information was captured during the recording process and put on the medium, it’s a matter of extracting the information and presenting it in the room through the system. I don’t think it’s just a speaker thing. It depends on the whole system, and I agree with you that it starts at the source being able to extract the information that’s on the recording, and then not having the system corrupt that information as it presents it to the listener in the room.

To me, it all comes down to the the degree of clarity in the presentation and the amount of energy that gets launched into the room. This is what I take away from live music.

The other night I went to listen to a piano violin and cello trio, playing Mendelsohn and solo piano playing Beethoven and Rachmaninoff. The energy from 20 feet away was unbelievable. I felt it through my body. The sound was huge and clear with beautiful rich tone. And it was incredibly immediate. It was not palpable in the sense of a holographic three-dimensional image that is so often described in these discussions. There was simply localization of the three instruments playing near each other in space. I want my system to present that experience, not 3-D images presented against a black background, nor flat and two dimensional. And I don’t want systems to create a precise virtual representation of musicians on a stage because that is not what I experienced the other night. What I did experience was the physicality of live music performed in front of me and sound filling the space around me. When a recording captures that essence and the system can present it, we are getting closer to the natural sound of live music. The best systems, regardless of price or type, can do this.

I do not think it is as simple as speaker typology. It is about very carefully selected gear set up in a particular way in a room. For some, this is the target and why we speak in terms of the listening experience rather than just the sound.

 

[stevebythebay]

How about looking (OK, listening) to this hypothesis in another way: taking an instrument and evaluating it under varied conditions of venue as well as capture. How is it that our ear/brain can perceive a live performance in real time versus a recording being reproduced in the same space? Is it just a matter of dynamics, or far more? As you’ve pointed out, a speaker is not really trying to do more than mimic the characteristics of the instruments that have been captured by one or more microphones.

Like trying to capture what we see when the stand before the breadth and depth of the Grand Canyon versus a photographic image or video playback. The eye is capturing the image at many times a second, and with two eyes gathering a parallax view that the brain evaluates and processes.

It seems all of our sense gathering is being analyzed by our brain, and presented to our consciousness in ways we do not as yet fully understand. As with any hypothesis leading towards a theory, whether based on mathematics or observation, we need some means of measurement.

 

[sbnx]

My observation is that a solid system produces solid sound. For example, I recently purchased new audio stands for my components. I moved everything over to the new stands and started to listen. Something was off. The sound was a little diffuse. This was obviously something related to the equipment move, so I went over to the components and started investigating the stability of the stands and how each component was positioned on the stand. I found that the preamp head unit was a little wobbly. I turned the right rear RevOpod two clicks and the preamp was now stable. When I went back and listened everything snapped in. The sound was once again solid.

This is easy to experiment with. Check all of your components, shelves, stands, speakers and anything else. Make sure everything is 100% level with no wiggle. Note changes in solidity.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I want my system to present that experience, not 3-D images presented against a black background.

Yes, Peter, we know you want a 2-D sound stage with blurred images presented against a grainy background. Why can't you describe what you like without constant misrepresentation of what others prefer, changing the sense of words that most known audiophiles use?

IMO negative speech misusing words is a very poor communication technique.

And I don’t want systems to create a precise visual representation of musicians on a stage because that is not what I experienced the other night.

Nice to know that your brain is able to keep separate paths for visual and aural messages. Common people merge them.

What I did experience was the physicality of live music being performed with me in the same space.

Bravo! Could it be otherwise?

When a recording captures that essence and the system can present it, we are getting somewhere. And I have experienced that from only a handful of systems.

We can risk to say you need to listen to more systems or change your listening biases.

I do not think it is as simple as speaker typology. It is about very carefully selected gear set up in a particular way in a room. For some, this is the target and why we speak in terms of the listening experience rather than just the sound.

IMO speaking just about he listening experience just shows that the writer is not able to address sound in sound reproduction conveniently and uses the listening experience as an escape door. Just IMO, YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

IMO physical presence results from frequency balance, distortions purposely added to the signal, speaker dispersion and surely room characteristics.

Merging these four characteristics needs expertise, or sometime luck. It is not associated with a particular type of gear, but a system property that unfortunately also includes the recording. Optimizing the system just for physical presence with just a couple of favorite recordings risks jeopardizing others. It is an extremely individual characteristic - I have seen experienced people having extreme opinions on it in the same system.

 

[Vinicius297]

Just to clarify, my point was not that the only factor in determining “physicality” in sound reproduction was the air pressure generated by the type of transducer used. Obviously there are other aspects, like phase, impulse response, low distortion, etc. And obviously there are variations between different speakers of a similar type. Some horns sound more physical, solid, and tangible than others. And sound itself has a wide spectrum of physical impact, but I think you’ll agree with me that it clearly coincides with the air displaced/area theorem I propose. A snare drum hit by a drumstick moves a lot of air from a tiny point and it sounds very physical indeed and our sense of physicality is an “objective” thing arising from the resultant air pressure, directly analogous to the water-pressure from a hose I compared it to. Not a “subjective” impression with no counterpart in physics.
But I hope you have all started to actually listen for “physicality” in your evaluation of audio systems. To me, it is one of the clearest and most obvious attributes of sound and one that has been remarkably overlooked. But even though it’s been unarticulated, many listeners know without understanding what it is, and the increasing popularity of horns, despite their drawbacks, and the sense that electrostatics, despite their strengths, are missing out on something attests that more attention needs to be paid to this vital component of realism in sound reproduction.

 

[Vinicius297]

Oh, and I did indeed have a long and fascinating discussion with Grok (XAi). In fact, it urged me to join this Forum and post my theory. If you aren’t using Grok or something similar, you’re missing out on a sounding-board better than any human you know.

 

[LL21]

I think this is a fascinating thread. Many people talk about realism but of course what and how people prioritize/weight the catalogue of traits towards “real” differs so it becomes difficult to discuss the science of real.

In this case the OP is talking about physicality. And that is a characteristic I happen to value. The depth, power of a piano rooted-to-your-living-room-floor physicality.

And I do think that has to do with air movement and air speed. A combination towards what David Wilson called dynamic expression. But for me in particular it is the combination of effortless alacrity and effortless large-scale air displacement.

There are many things that give physicality I am sure..but air displacement/movement has been a huge focus for me after first hearing the Genesis Ones…the massive 4-tower 2.5m/8 foot tall speakers. The Rockport Arrakis had a version of foundational real and physicality as well.

I have heard the AG Trio G3s with dual horns each channel. Effortless air displacement (and instant effortless speed).

I think David Wilson has done a great job within a 2 foot x 2 foot footprint at creating a sense of foundational physicality from his X-speakers. Not the same imho as the others mentioned here in my post but darn good and perhaps one of the reasons I like them.

I also feel like my instincts are telling me that the AG Trio and other big speakers might be foundational in physicality because there’s something going on in the mid bass which is allowing a sense of solid body to take root in the important lower mids and the bass/power region that combine to create a sense of foundational physicality.

Going forward I am intrigued by 4-towers which have this surface area particularly in that mid bass region because I prioritise that foundational physicality over many things including more intimate nuance. Naturally most of us want it all…but have our priorities. This is one of mine…and it will be interesting to see where this thread goes.

 

[Anton D]

Effortless air displacement....

This is key.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Vinicius,

Thank you for this excellent post! I love this kind of think piece!

I have often said that I believe that horn speakers doing a wonderful and convincing job of producing brass instruments, for example, because horns move air in a way that is consonant with the way those instruments themselves move air.

How do you explain the sonic physicality of the MBL 101E Mk. II and X-Treme loudspeakers?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Effortless air displacement (and instant effortless speed). (...)

Now you have to explain me what is laborious or arduous air displacement ...

Imagine you are listening through a 3 micron mylar sheet, completely separating your air volume from the speaker air volume - I am referring to the old Peter Walker words. Does it ruin the "physicality" of the sound of a system?

 

[Duke LeJeune]

... I think you’ll agree with me that it clearly coincides with the air displaced/area theorem I propose....

I agree with the correlation you have observed. But I think there might be a different causation than the one you have proposed.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I believe three conditions must be met in order for the perception of "physicality" to occur:

1. The direct sound should sound like the direct sound of real instruments, or close enough.

2. The reflections should sound like the reflections of real instruments, or close enough.

3. There should be a sufficient time gap in between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections so that the ear/brain system can process them separately. If the reflections arrive too soon, the ear/brain system cannot separate them sufficiently and we do not get the sense of "physicality" that you describe. According to my understanding of psychoacoustician David Griesinger, about ten milliseconds (the time it takes for sound to travel about 11 feet) is sufficient.

Horns often do a better job with the sound quality of the reflection field than most speakers, and their relatively narrow radiation patterns can result in an unusually long time delay before the strong onset of reflections. But it is possible to meet the above three criteria with conventional systems, with dipoles, and with omnis... imo it's just easier (and less demanding of room size and/or room treatment) with horns.

You might find David Griesinger to be a valuable source of insight. David specializes in concert hall acoustics and psychoacoustics, and imo the general principles he decribes are applicable to home audio, even though our reflection path lengths are much shorter. Here is a lecture in which he talks about "proximity" in the context of concert halls, and I think he's referring to what we would call "physicality" or "palpability" or "presence" in the context of home audio.

The link is cued up to where he does a demonstration using a sound clip that has been processed to include only the direct sound; then the direct sound plus the first reflection; then the direct sound and late reflections but excluding the first reflection; and finally all at once. Headphones or earbuds recommended:

Imo the third one ("all but no first reflection") @ 14:20 is what sounds best, combining both proximity and envelopment. While the reflection path lengths are shorter for home audio, imo the general principles are applicable, and these clips illustrate the desirability of having that time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections.

David also talks about the importance of preserving the phase alignment of the harmonics above 1 kHz or so, and this is a more complicated topic in a home audio context but again it is an area where horn systems often do pretty well.

 

[LL21]

Now you have to explain me what is laborious or arduous air displacement ...

Imagine you are listening through a 3 micron mylar sheet, completely separating your air volume from the speaker air volume - I am referring to the old Peter Walker words. Does it ruin the "physicality" of the sound of a system?

You are talking to a self-admitted non-techie...but the point is that for me when I think about physicality, I only find what I am looking for in large scale speakers that do a lot of whatever big speakers do (move air, displace air, whatever): Rockport Arrakis, Genesis 1s, AG Trio G3s...and brief auditions with 4-tower Tidal Sunrays. I had an even more brief listen to Ron's 4-tower Gryphon Pendragon. But having really listened for hours to the first 3, I feel like the first 3 are the ones I feel confident for me create a physical power/scale even at low levels that is effortless and is also at a level that is comfortably beyond the more traditionally sized large speakers (XLF, Focal Grande Utopia, Cessaro Betas or Lizst)

 

[LL21]

I agree with the correlation you have observed. But I think there might be a different causation than the one you have proposed.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I believe three conditions must be met in order for the perception of "physicality" to occur:

1. The direct sound should sound like the direct sound of real instruments, or close enough.

2. The reflections should sound like the reflections of real instruments, or close enough.

3. There should be a sufficient time gap in between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections so that the ear/brain system can process them separately. If the reflections arrive too soon, the ear/brain system cannot separate them sufficiently and we do not get the sense of "physicality" that you describe. According to my understanding of psychoacoustician David Griesinger, about ten milliseconds (the time it takes for sound to travel about 11 feet) is sufficient.

Horns often do a better job with the sound quality of the reflection field than most speakers, and their relatively narrow radiation patterns can result in an unusually long time delay before the strong onset of reflections. But it is possible to meet the above three criteria with conventional systems, with dipoles, and with omnis... imo it's just easier (and less demanding of room size and/or room treatment) with horns.

You might find David Griesinger to be a valuable source of insight. David specializes in concert hall acoustics and psychoacoustics, and imo the general principles he decribes are applicable to home audio, even though our reflection path lengths are much shorter. Here is a lecture in which he talks about "proximity" in the context of concert halls, and I think he's referring to what we would call "physicality" or "palpability" or "presence" in the context of home audio.

The link is cued up to where he does a demonstration using a sound clip that has been processed to include only the direct sound; then the direct sound plus the first reflection; then the direct sound and late reflections but excluding the first reflection; and finally all at once. Headphones or earbuds recommended:

Imo the third one ("all but no first reflection") @ 14:20 is what sounds best, combining both proximity and envelopment. While the reflection path lengths are shorter for home audio, imo the general principles are applicable, and these clips illustrate the desirability of having that time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections.

David also talks about the importance of preserving the phase alignment of the harmonics above 1 kHz or so, and this is a more complicated topic in

Duke,

You always manage to create a scientific sense of order that even dummies-for-audio like me can 'try' to understand if we read it 3 times. Thank you!

Coming back to your comments specifically, let me ask you this: when I am in a totally different room, I often find that the physicality is there on those bigger systems. But would your reflections analysis still hold in those cases? I would have guessed once you're in a different room and find that the system has that sense of physical power/presence that simulates real instruments...it is more about pure air movement than the reflections?

That is why, for our system, I am more focused on big subs to add effortless air movement to the deep bass and potentially enable the main speaker to have more capacity/headroom for the midbass (because we would be allowing the main amps and the main speakers to stop somewhere below 45hz rather than go down sub 20hz).

 

[Anton D]

I was spending time at a show once, and was relaxing with a speaker manufacturer who mentioned something in passing that stayed in my mental Rolodex.

He talked about choosing speakers from his line for demos and matching models to rooms; which he described as which model best "loads" a room, sonically.

He was really interested in the room and speaker matching in terms of how a speaker acoustically 'controls the room,' so to speak. He talked about underloading and overloading a room in a way that struck me as quite insightful.

Many levels to this "horses for courses" way of looking at things, for sure.

There are less than handful of times I have felt the frisson of "live music in there" as I went into a room playing music. The most notable time was a giant Avante Garde Trio set up with a stack of those horn woofers playing back a cut from The Duke Ellington Band's "Satin Doll" from the LP "For Duke." Horns can really play back horns!

"Jump Factor" comes to mind.

Those illusion are so fleeting, though. It lasted less than a second, but what an accomplishment.