Hi All!
Where to start .........
We describe audible differences between components, etc. (that etc. is supposed to be the subject of this thread.) Then we go and test, and sometimes we find a difference - lo and behold!! Could it be audible - that question is not always asked .....
Those honestly looking for an explanation (as humans are inclined to, otherwise we would still have been in the dark ages) but feeling that they lack the scientific knowledge, respectfully suggest that there just might be something one cannot yet measure. After all, is the unknown not often more awe-inspiring than the known (the latter sometimes holds pityfully little challenge)?
Then scientists feel - er - somewhat taken aback, and (again honestly) set forth and produce arguments and formulae to try to explain that such cannot be the case because 2+3 cannot = 8; we do not know everything but we do know certain things. Or, said theory could possibly include matters we have not up to now thought about. This being showed, those with the relevant lack of knowledge feel somewhat vindicated - we must still experiment further .....
All of this (or most of it) originating from what we profess to have heard 1147 words ago. Now if we have spent half the time in also (if not to begin with) investigating the accuracy, nature, vagaries, whatever, of the hearing faculty, we could at least have placed the rest on a sound foundation, or at worst have been disillusioned that the foundation was not as sound (figuratively, literally, pun intended etc.) as we have postulated.
That is not quite the subject of this thread, but perhaps it should have been the subject of a thread preceeding this one! I have read of acousto-medical reports suggesting that there could at least be doubt here, but unfortunately what photo-copies were made at the time have been mislaid (such a nice innuendo).
Is it possible to rectify this shortcoming? Is there a doctor in the house? My own humble web researches have not uncovered much; I do recall some contributions in the Proc. AES, but again some 20 years ago; impossible to retrace now.
Perhaps someone could oblige or know of someone who will be able to, before we go on.
Regards!
Where to start .........
We describe audible differences between components, etc. (that etc. is supposed to be the subject of this thread.) Then we go and test, and sometimes we find a difference - lo and behold!! Could it be audible - that question is not always asked .....
Those honestly looking for an explanation (as humans are inclined to, otherwise we would still have been in the dark ages) but feeling that they lack the scientific knowledge, respectfully suggest that there just might be something one cannot yet measure. After all, is the unknown not often more awe-inspiring than the known (the latter sometimes holds pityfully little challenge)?
Then scientists feel - er - somewhat taken aback, and (again honestly) set forth and produce arguments and formulae to try to explain that such cannot be the case because 2+3 cannot = 8; we do not know everything but we do know certain things. Or, said theory could possibly include matters we have not up to now thought about. This being showed, those with the relevant lack of knowledge feel somewhat vindicated - we must still experiment further .....
All of this (or most of it) originating from what we profess to have heard 1147 words ago. Now if we have spent half the time in also (if not to begin with) investigating the accuracy, nature, vagaries, whatever, of the hearing faculty, we could at least have placed the rest on a sound foundation, or at worst have been disillusioned that the foundation was not as sound (figuratively, literally, pun intended etc.) as we have postulated.
That is not quite the subject of this thread, but perhaps it should have been the subject of a thread preceeding this one! I have read of acousto-medical reports suggesting that there could at least be doubt here, but unfortunately what photo-copies were made at the time have been mislaid (such a nice innuendo).
Is it possible to rectify this shortcoming? Is there a doctor in the house? My own humble web researches have not uncovered much; I do recall some contributions in the Proc. AES, but again some 20 years ago; impossible to retrace now.
Perhaps someone could oblige or know of someone who will be able to, before we go on.
Regards!
Johan Potgieter said:
I think this is a bit of a strawman, and an inaccurate way to describe the scientific process and what motivates it. Generally it's not the goal to "disprove" something, it's an attempt to prove something, and that attempt may fail. However, repeatability is key, and attempts to falsify what may have been proven through experiment ultimately leads us to an advancement of what we DO know.
I don't generally get a feeling that there is conceit that scientists have "got it all figured out", since that pretty much is the antithesis of scientific (and skeptic) pursuit of knowledge. If anything, the one's who appear to have it all figured out, are the ones who make the untestable claims.
jneutron said:
Sorry John,
This has to do with speaker signals and cables, how?
But continuing on the subject of audibility of very small phase differences.
This one will have to investigate at the hand of relevant hearing tests - it could be quite important. For now only I think we must be careful to relate this to some mystical sensing properties outside the audio band (not that you did). Sensing phase differences between two audible signals does not have to do with being able to hear things super-audio. On the other hand, it is known that a maintained high level "sound" at 30 KHz kan produce a headache with some individuals - but for that there could be several other physiolocal explanations.
I am going to be away for about 12 days but would like to interest myself in this when returning, failing other experts in this field doing so in the meantime. A most interesting aspect of audio.
Regards.
macgyver10 said:
Briefly I would agree with you, Macgyver10, in as far as goals should be. But I seem to have detected what I stated in comments over the years. The point I tried to make was to point out the difference in the "volume" of comment, one way or another, regarding what I outlined and that (rather the lack of it, then) of contributions regarding the hearing faculty. Something of a "cart-before-the-horse". Perhaps I don't read the right magazines or web-sites.
You have to bear in mind that the ear/brain system uses two different method to localise sound sources, below 3KHz it uses phase difference, above 3KHz intensity of the sound is key. this was discovered as early as 1936, ( Stevens and Newman, American Journal of Psychology, ( I remembered the study, I just had to check the reference 
)) It is also interesting to note that both systems roll off early, so sound localisation is worst at about 3KHz, right in the middle of the so called sweet spot. Work that one out!
)) It is also interesting to note that both systems roll off early, so sound localisation is worst at about 3KHz, right in the middle of the so called sweet spot. Work that one out! Pinkmouse,
Absolutely!
I had the privilege to be involved in some study regarding deafness in the 70s (for which I earned a research trip to the US of A, no less), and then studied the physiology of the ear. Quite fascinating, but memory has gone dim. That is why I am interested to take it up again. Challenging stuff; nowhere near to an analogy of the microphone etc.
Regards
Regards
Absolutely!
I had the privilege to be involved in some study regarding deafness in the 70s (for which I earned a research trip to the US of A, no less), and then studied the physiology of the ear. Quite fascinating, but memory has gone dim. That is why I am interested to take it up again. Challenging stuff; nowhere near to an analogy of the microphone etc.
Regards
Regards
Johan Potgieter said:
It shows that the dissipative loss in the wire will have a different time varying envelope if biwiring is used vs a single monowire. It also points out that the dissipation of a monowire fed frequency branch system is not a scaled version of the dissipation at the driver loads.
All recommendations for wire guage are calculated under the assumption that the loss within the wire is simply a scaled identical version of the load dissipation, and that either damping factor or power loss is the defining criteria.. That is only true for single drivers. It is not the case for loads consisting of crossovers.
The modulation of one signal's dissipative component in the feed wires by another signal is what we need to look for in terms of audibility.
Johan Potgieter said:
U/S signals are sensed by the auditory system and reacted to. In my personal experience, U/S will cause my ears to adjust to the power level by dropping "gain". So I can detect the presence of U/S acoustic signals by the apparent drop of background noise levels. The tech using the U/S welder, historically, has had headaches so now uses hearing protection.
Johan Potgieter said:
I have detailed some of this on this forum and others, and will be here when you return. If it is vacation, do not think about this topic...if it is work, good luck.
Cheers, John
the fact again:
http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm
http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm
no doubt for Eilliot's pages.
http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm
http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm
no doubt for Eilliot's pages.
kartino said:
kartino said:
Rod uses a simplistic test method. It is consistent with all that has prefaced it for the last 2 decades.
An excellent read, btw.. Do note that he states the Jon Risch cross coax design is a good one, and better than many commercially available designs with respect to amplifier stability.
But alas, Rod only tests into a single load. No branches, no crossovers...which of course, all two and three way systems have.
Simply, conventional. I did not expect anything other than the result he obtained.
Cheers, John
as are my ears.
Simply was never able to hear any differences in cables - so a non issue for me personally. Just like to read what others think they hear or what they think might be audible and related to measurements.
BTW - somebody mentioned hunting. Being a hunter - I hunt using my ears, nothing else works for longer distances in our kind of bush. You just can't see more than fifty feet ahead - till beginning of october.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.