You may try 200Hz sine burst signal around 15-20 cycles to see DC Offset stability or combine with 10kHz THD measurement.
In my experiences, some kind of distortion sound pleasing and other sound awful. But it matter of preferences. Some of my friends really like H2 dominant distortion, but I don't. I prefer very low distortion at all audio frequency.
So all results of research into the pinna transformation is BS.
Whatever term being used, the capability for a human to distinguish a source of sound in 3d space remains an essential survival trait. The method you describe is simply another unscientific hit and miss experiment with no supporting measurement. And this area has become a real nice fresh lake where snake oil peddlers like to swim. They much prefer a clear interpretation on the measurement to not be found.
Since all the pinna transformation research is a scam, nothing left for me to think.
Now you equate properties of sound wave with EM wave. Whatever derogatory term you use, you are incapable to interpret what brings about the illusion which is right there in the acoustic measurement.
Yup, it sure isn't expensive DACs.
Then there is one who said lots can be heard that cannot be measured. He happens to be a longtime forum member.
Once it is mixed down to stereo and without the knowing the settings on the mixing desk and any outboard gear used you cannot measure what has been done to it.
Some engineers are good at it, others not so much but there is no way of telling just by looking at the stereo waveforms.
He said it couple years ago and he still hasn't cited a single example when I asked about it.
Oh that thread...
I remember I was a to a point when Jneutron was to design some voice coil for some experiments (BEMF?) While from Thailand someone yelled 'pump the' bass'
Now I see some advancement in the last few pages.
Anatech and ScottJoplin seem to become wiser...
The mistery is in the record
and we don't know what's inside
I remember I was a to a point when Jneutron was to design some voice coil for some experiments (BEMF?) While from Thailand someone yelled 'pump the' bass'
Now I see some advancement in the last few pages.
Anatech and ScottJoplin seem to become wiser...
The mistery is in the record
and we don't know what's inside
But I suppose you would agree that in the event that we had indeed invented the perfect total reproduction architecture (rec & play) and in this architecture, there where a power amp function present, and it needed to be perfectly linear, and when such amplifier was indeed in place in a realised system of said architecture, the system reproduced a wonderful illusion of music performed in a hall - would you in this case exchange that amp with a tube amp and think it would sound even better?
So a very good measuring amp is not a big audio lie. It is the result of an flawed reproduction system architecture (stereo) and a half baked "standard" (DIN) that specified components instead of the system. It is most probably what we in the end want.
One non-linear function can be the inverse of an other non-linear function - thus making a system formed by both, appear linear. Its problematic to think that if one or two functions are of one kind and the rest of the other kind, will form a linear system because it most probably wont.
Its so easy - just recreate the exact same pressure situation in an imagined 8 inch half sphere just outside each ear, as a function of time, as positioned in a good sounding place as in the hall that the music event too place in. QED.
But I think that in an approach like this, no one would come up with the idea to on purpose add a grosly, "randomly" unilinear component into the signal handling path (except for deliberate FR and phase compensation as a consequence of the architecture if such compensation was needed per design).
Currently, people seem to use parts of the old "architecture" to argue for one component in the chain to be linear as in "hi-fi". But with a complete rec/play architecture at hand this is just high hopes of something... None of the "sides" are right but we are all sadly wrong. But as I claimed before - the ones with linear components in its system will have fewer ones to exchange once the "Solution" is present - meanwhile, the other camp might actually have more fun waiting
Luckily this don't prevents us to enjoy recorded music and at times to a quite convincing reproduction And this site would only contain a "Music" section ;-D
//
Last edited:
I just saw this thread. Yes, it can be measured to a great extent (mainly bound by limitation of our measuring equipment and how we interpret the data).
The main difficulty is interpreting the data. IF you record the sound, it will be frequency over amplitude over time (looks like a 3D image of sea waves). Things like treble, bass, transient etc will be relatively easy to see. However, others are alot harder.
From this image, how do you tell which pattern corresponds to strong imaging? Or staging or even transparency? Which pattern shows compression or lack of dynamics? We will need to compare various patterns from different equipment that show distinct characteristics of the sound, analyze it. Perhaps then we can see this pattern which gives the sound its characteristic.
Of course, our own equipment has limitation too. We will need extremely sensitive equipment to really capture the sound. Then, even microphones itself has its own colouration (a standard 100% neutral mic does not exist). WE might need numerous mic to get a better average of the sound produced.
Then, lastly, one might ask whats the point of all these? Audio equipment is basically just electrical appliance so it needs to conform to standards for safety and design. Audio quality/characteristic is not a standard, its not possible to regulate it.
The main difficulty is interpreting the data. IF you record the sound, it will be frequency over amplitude over time (looks like a 3D image of sea waves). Things like treble, bass, transient etc will be relatively easy to see. However, others are alot harder.
From this image, how do you tell which pattern corresponds to strong imaging? Or staging or even transparency? Which pattern shows compression or lack of dynamics? We will need to compare various patterns from different equipment that show distinct characteristics of the sound, analyze it. Perhaps then we can see this pattern which gives the sound its characteristic.
Of course, our own equipment has limitation too. We will need extremely sensitive equipment to really capture the sound. Then, even microphones itself has its own colouration (a standard 100% neutral mic does not exist). WE might need numerous mic to get a better average of the sound produced.
Then, lastly, one might ask whats the point of all these? Audio equipment is basically just electrical appliance so it needs to conform to standards for safety and design. Audio quality/characteristic is not a standard, its not possible to regulate it.
First, take out the stereo and multi sound source factors. Use a single headphone and put on one of your ears, what do you hear?
Remember Nelson Pass showed a negative phase H2 has an effect on depth illusion, but somewhat less on height.
Now this is the basic how one fundamental plus 2nd harmonic will make the sound "wider" giving the illusion of space or room ambience. I don't know how hard to understand this for those who cannot hear the test signals but if you can this is obvious.
Basically, taken at face value he is not - reason is the mixup between the produced sound and it's interpretation by human listeners, therefore the position between left and right is already an interpretation by our brain (just an illusion as well).
Anatech already said it, we need both measurements and listening experience, and we try to find out which way our listening sense works - both on a physiological basis and cognitive functions - and have to learn which way to measure what is relevant.
As scottjoplin already said, the resulting signal contains all the informations at once and if we want to know about the content (as it would be interpreted by a human listening sense) we have to analyze it the same way.
Beg to differ. Two speakers with phase shift is a coarse phased array. So you can steer the signal roughly in the lateral plane, which was my point. The fact that the human ear accepts level differences without phase shift does show the level the brain is trying to create a soundfield from scraps of data, but fundamentally there is some steering capability with two speakers.
But humans oddly seem happy to stick with the illusion rather than improve the soundfield beind presented. Funny old world.
Oboe (navigation - Wikipedia) . OK all we needed to hit was a city so accuracy was not pinpoint. And of course it's efficacy was over pumped.
Let me quote again from the first post:
"Basically through an ellaborate test of some 25 college students we were able to show that THD and IMD are meaningless measurements of distortion as far as perception is concerned. Basically one cannot say that something does or does not sound good based on these measurements. .01% can sound outrageous in some cases and 25% can be inaudible in others. The numbers are meaningless."
Not a good business card for most of those who post on this thread.
The curious thing is that except for peufeu, quickly scrolling through the thread, I have not found any post from those who post here.
But it is certainly a coincidence.
Although is well known I'm a perfect ignorant in audio I would think my mind is open, so I'm here to learn.
Therefore I would make an experiment starting from the results of the listening session I have pointed out.
It's not a simple job because my free time is very limited, both amps are not at my home and maybe my tools are not the most suitable.
Let me elaborate a little the challenge then I will post what I would like to do.
Billshurv example of panoramic placement through electronic is an interesting case about psychoacoustic: the effect is easily reproduced with level difference only.
Once you integrate a time delta in addition to it ( iow a delay) to be closer to the principle at work in 'reality' ( to mimic I.T.D. - Interaural Time Difference) strange things can happen: position can be less accurate within the soundfield being more an area than an angular direction you can point at it, the sound may seem to be 'floating' in front of the rest of the image and a bit 'blurry' in it's definition.
Of course this is related to precedence effect ( Haas effect), miscalibration of delay time applied (for a given lateral position: an approximation in delay time) and the fact our earing is not linear in his way to analyze the incoming signal (level difference for low end and mid up to 1khz then it rely more on delta time from then (simplified your head is a screen which shade level difference)).
What is the point about this? Well we know our brain is tricked by level difference only so there is some tolerance allowed (treshold) for sound quality. Measurement will greatly help to determine this treshold and listening experience will validate it (or not but in this case it will).
So iow, both are needed ( measurement then validation through real life experience of it).
From an electronic p.o.v. it is now easy to analyze and measure almost anything. The point being what our psyche need to be tricked, i.o.w. you have to measure significant parameters for what you are looking to analyze.
So psychoacoustic research should be the initial inspiration to determine what have to be analyzed and determine treshold of hearing.
Once you change environnement and introduce acoustic into the equation things are less easier to determine as there is more (gross and colourful) interaction than in a circuit and they brings their own illusion to the table too...and once you learned to identify their effect they can change sound quality to a greater/dramatic effect than a variation of 0,2% thd.
But still a mic and a bit of theory could help identify what happen and what is important to bring 'sound quality' to you ( it is a moving target varying from individual to individual). But analysis and interpretation of data is even harder than in an electronic circuit ( to me at least).
Anyway in the end this measurements ( if you look for the meaningful parameters) seems to correlate
with a set of parameters to determine sound quality ( at least statistically for loudspeakers).
Once you integrate a time delta in addition to it ( iow a delay) to be closer to the principle at work in 'reality' ( to mimic I.T.D. - Interaural Time Difference) strange things can happen: position can be less accurate within the soundfield being more an area than an angular direction you can point at it, the sound may seem to be 'floating' in front of the rest of the image and a bit 'blurry' in it's definition.
Of course this is related to precedence effect ( Haas effect), miscalibration of delay time applied (for a given lateral position: an approximation in delay time) and the fact our earing is not linear in his way to analyze the incoming signal (level difference for low end and mid up to 1khz then it rely more on delta time from then (simplified your head is a screen which shade level difference)).
What is the point about this? Well we know our brain is tricked by level difference only so there is some tolerance allowed (treshold) for sound quality. Measurement will greatly help to determine this treshold and listening experience will validate it (or not but in this case it will).
So iow, both are needed ( measurement then validation through real life experience of it).
From an electronic p.o.v. it is now easy to analyze and measure almost anything. The point being what our psyche need to be tricked, i.o.w. you have to measure significant parameters for what you are looking to analyze.
So psychoacoustic research should be the initial inspiration to determine what have to be analyzed and determine treshold of hearing.
Once you change environnement and introduce acoustic into the equation things are less easier to determine as there is more (gross and colourful) interaction than in a circuit and they brings their own illusion to the table too...and once you learned to identify their effect they can change sound quality to a greater/dramatic effect than a variation of 0,2% thd.
But still a mic and a bit of theory could help identify what happen and what is important to bring 'sound quality' to you ( it is a moving target varying from individual to individual). But analysis and interpretation of data is even harder than in an electronic circuit ( to me at least).
Anyway in the end this measurements ( if you look for the meaningful parameters) seems to correlate
with a set of parameters to determine sound quality ( at least statistically for loudspeakers).
Last edited:
I'd say this statement illustrates why this kind of discussions is often difficult, as it seems to neglect that we are dealing with perceptions or IOW with internal representations of the reality.
We have often emphasized that quite different soundfields could nevertheless lead to very similar (if not identical) perceptions.
Fürther that our brain always tries to present something to "us" that is consistent with our past experiences.
Therefore it isn't the point if we really can "biangulate" but if our brains presents us something that is comparable to a threedimensional reproduction space although it is from a technical pov just an illusion.
Blauert discovered a long time ago the socalled "Blauertschen Bänder" which means that the spectral contents of specific bands of frequencies leads to different heigth impressions of the percepted sound although the actual sound source remained at the same place.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.