Markus
While we can resolve vertical source location, because our ears are in the horizontal plane, our capability is poor and there are a lot of ambiguities - like front to back. All the vertical cues are pure frequency response because there are no "differences" available as cues. This is why lateral reflections are perceived as "ambiance" while vertical ones are not. (I know that you know this, its really for others.)
While we can resolve vertical source location, because our ears are in the horizontal plane, our capability is poor and there are a lot of ambiguities - like front to back. All the vertical cues are pure frequency response because there are no "differences" available as cues. This is why lateral reflections are perceived as "ambiance" while vertical ones are not. (I know that you know this, its really for others.)
I think you misread my comment. I never argued that cables are audible. Some argued that cables make a difference when interconnecting badly designed equipment. But that's not the problem of the cable but of the bad devices. In the year 2010 it should be pretty easy to find an AVR that connects to an amp/speakers without any problems. All other connections are digital anyway.
By the way, have we talked about turntables yet?
I could change 5 cartridges before you loosen your speaker cable's spades
Now,I haven't ever tried to see how long it takes to change all my 11 cartridges on the Jelco arm
Here we go!
Yes, if we try to build a VR audio system these are the typical problems (due to the lack of individualized HRTFs). Looking at the physical aspects of a sound field, there are only a few cues that could help us localize sounds in the median plane but in natural sound fields vertical localization works remarkably well.
I'm not sure that this is a valid conclusion.
Best, Markus
Not much of what you've written makes sense nor does it answer the question. A person would have to be awfully basic to buy something because there is a sexy woman involved. To think that an experienced audiophile would prefer the prettiest piece of equipment is ignorance. It seems like a scholarly notion to suggest that things like human psychology and Darwinian evolution play the major role in preference of one piece of audio equipment over another, but it doesn't pan out over the long run, especially if one is aware of those kinds of influences.
I can count many instances where a speaker that I really hated the way it looked sounded really good, or one that looked so ordinary that I had no expectation or interest in at all sounded exceptional. Not to mention the speakers that I thought were really cool looking that were just awful sounding. To be honest, I wouldn't know what a cable would have to look like for it to have any influence at all as to what it would do, conscience or sub-conscience.
John
Once more "experienced audiophiles" turn out to be really very special people
Reality check:
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
Last edited:
Yep I use them. I also use an inexpensive CD player and receiver. I fell for the mysticism of cables and tweaks when I was younger and naive. I'm past that now. There are other things that make way more difference and ultimately you just have to stop and enjoy what you have.
-David
First try and beat the Bulls.
grrrr
No prejudices, I said it make me wonder. Chances to see a Ferrari with retreaded tyres is very slim.
excellent, you sayin my system like a ferrari? yep, that's in the ball park!
Again, you are arguing your prejudice here. You are equating 'poor cables' (like mine) with bald tyres on a high performance machine, where it could be argued that it is in fact dangerous to have bald tyres. (hmm, must be american software, tyres is coming up as wrongly spelled).
For sure, we do tend to overstate our respective cases in the midst of an 'argument'...hang on, I don't! You've seen the photos haha, but correct me if I am wrong but I have seen you say that cables don't necessarily make *large* difference (albeit worthwhile in your estimation)...so what's with this bald tyres rubbish??
Quite a lot actually.
But never mind, it is not something that can ever be sorted on the net.
Completely off topic (but your question reminded me)...and this may be something earle has pondered...
How many of you guys have head phones??? Have a listen to this
YouTube - Virtual Barber Shop (Audio...use headphones, close ur eyes)
It is a binaural recording which is a lot of fun to listen to. (hope the link worked).
Has anyone mucked around with making a binaural recording? It is supposedly quite an accurate representation of what we actually hear.
Earle, how practical is it as a method of showing (via the net) how good your speakers (say) sound????
Stick the dummy head where your own head would be, and (if it is as true a representation as they say) it might go a way to 'hearing' different setups via headphones.
It might only be worthwhile as a comparative thing (speakers in room, add treatment then compare) rather than a way to compare different setups. dunno.
have never seen it used in marketing tho, just something I have pondered a while.
IF it worked, well maybe then I could win a few hundred rand off andre!!
Still, if you have headphones give that link a go, worthwhile. Beats talking about cables.
By the way, have we talked about turntables yet?
May as well, we just started on valve amps and valve rolling!
But John, it really IS the case! This is so well documented! It is not specific to audio, it's the way we are. And you may be aware of it in an itellectual sense, but it still has it's impact on you. Again and again and again. The brain is flexible but these ingrained wirings cannot be changed except with huge costs in time and energy.
I know you don't believe me because you have never taken the time to REALLY dig into it. But ignorance doesn't change facts.
jd
Earl would be in big trouble if he would offer binaural recordings of his speakers (and room). HRTFs are highly individual. Hearing through somebody else's ears results in huge tonality problems.
Its not a conclusion that I am drawing from the statement, its fairly widely held in arcitectural acoustics that lateral reflections help the sense of spaciousness while vertical ones do not. I can't quote the source right now, but it is only logical if you believe that interaural cross correlation is a good measure of spaciousness, because the Iinteraural cross correlation is zero for any source in the median plane. The shape of the Pinna gives some frequency response variation with height in the forward direction (the pinna face forward) and this can give a cue to height in the forward plane, but the rearward median half plane has almost no resolving power at all.
I have binaural recordings of alll my speakers in the same reoom using the Nueman head. But I have been disappointed with the playback. If I can standardize on a set of earbuds then I can EQ to those buds and the sound should be pretty good, but alas this is a lot of work and I am sorely short of extra time.
At Ford we did all of our evaluations using the Achen Head. They were quite accurate. We also documented everycoar that was tested so that in addition to the measurement we had audible tapes.
Markus
This was not our experience at Ford. We were quite comfortable with the recordings being "sufficient" to make decisions from. Were they perfect in every aspect? No. Front to back confusion - a big deal in cars, was pretty bad, but forward localization and tembre were excellent. That was a very very expensive system however.
I'm well aware of what is commonly believed in acoustics but I'm also well aware of the limited knowledge in that field.
I do believe that your speaker concept offers one of the most reasonable approaches but the foundation is built on shaky ground.
My experience with the Smyth Realiser is different. My ears don't look special but listening through somebody else's ears introduces huge errors. How representative is this? I don't know. We don't have any data
Funnily enough, I looked up the neuman head last night (told you I'd been thinking about it!!) creepers, ten thousand bucks!!!
Re the disappointment, any guesses why that might be? Markus thinks the different HRTF would really mess things up, how big a part might that play?
I dunno at all myself, but even with different HRTFs it might still come closer than any old normal microphone? It might make it unsuitable for the purpose of 'demoing speakers over the net' tho.
BUT, even with the differing HRTFs I'm sure the technique would be more than adequate to hear the difference of my system with and without room treatment!
Possibly not sensitive enough to hear differences in cables...groan, sad attempt to stay on topic. Heck I find this more interesting quite frankly right now
If I can standardize on a set of earbuds then I can EQ to those buds and the sound should be pretty good,
Sounds like the basic idea has some sort of promise? I mean if it didn't, you would not even have done the little investigations you have done right?
Anyone listened to the virtual barber shop yet? If everyone heard that clip, and got realistic results from it, what would that say about the importance of differing HRTFs? I mean, could we realistically expect to get reports from some who hear NO effects? (ie their HRTF was so different it simply did not work?)
Then all approaches are completely flawed.
It makes no sense to me to complain about "what we don't have or understand" but to deal with "what we do have and know". Within what is "known" and what we have, I claim my approach to be nearly optimum. As stated on another thread "Perfection is the enemy of progress".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.