John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2596 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th August 2012, 04:15 PM   #25951
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Morton, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
So, thus far, you have accused me of being at best gullible, and the source of a story I related to be possibly lying, and my gullibility based on unspecified preexisting beliefs. And now your aspersions are being cast on the preeminent authority on loudspeakers and rooms, because of supposed conflicts of interest associated with his employer (for whom, btw, he at most has a very-part-time consulting relationship now, for some years). This is almost as bad as Tom Holman stating (after his misguided prescriptions were challenged in the book) that Toole's book wasn't, after all, "peer-reviewed" (actually it was, but the publisher left out the list of reviewers).

So one is to be leery of anyone who writes a book on audio if he or she is either an audio company employee or employs people in such a company. Why not just extend this to anyone who writes at all, who might someday be thus employed?
By definition it is called a conflict of interest bc, that is the difference. It was also my personal view. I have no idea of who you are, and I did not have you in mind. My reply was to John.

Please accept my apologies if you are offended. However, I do not apologize for my opinion.

Cheers.

Last edited by Positron; 10th August 2012 at 04:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 04:23 PM   #25952
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Bcarso, let us not confuse the situation. Some people actually DON'T believe in 'hi end' audio quality, AND they write books that imply this, even though they also appear to be associated with companies that make audio equipment. This is just reality, AND they can be 'suspected' as to their motives, at least as much as my colleagues and I are 'suspected' by SY and others as to our motives.

Last edited by john curl; 10th August 2012 at 04:43 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 04:43 PM   #25953
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY
I was able to successfully identify under DBT conditions a stereophonic midrange all-pass using headphones
Am I right in thinking that the all-pass was applied digitally, so both channels would have received exactly the same filter? An analogue all-pass could simply apply a slightly different phase shift to each channel, due to component or measurement tolerances, which would be expected to show up in stereo.

This is of course a side-issue. If waveshape is important, then FFT is not a useful tool for analysis as it does not easily present waveshape in the results. This does not mean that any result obtained from FFT or a full Fourier analysis is false, as that is quite a different issue. I wonder whether some people may be confusing these two issues. Let us assume for a moment that waveshape is very audible. It is still true that a CR filter does not introduce non-linear distortion, because no new frequency components are generated. It might sound different, but that is what tone controls do!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 04:54 PM   #25954
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
You might find his current discussions on LinkedIn illuminating. Short version: there's so much error in the acoustic field sampling and replay, the phase/waveform shape issues are lost.
They are not lost. Changes are now cues to hear the environment, it is different.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 05:06 PM   #25955
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
By the way, I just checked with him: that LinkedIn room was not started by Floyd Toole but by Gerald Pratt.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 05:10 PM   #25956
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
Am I right in thinking that the all-pass was applied digitally, so both channels would have received exactly the same filter?
I believe that is the case. It was earlier in this very thread.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 05:50 PM   #25957
Jakob2 is offline Jakob2  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: germany
I´m sorry, but i am a bit lost on this one.

I simply don´t know what Hawksford experiment SY is referring to, nor what the dbt was like.

But, that in human ears, because of physiological reasons, exists some phase locking for frequencies up to ~ 5kHz is known for decades.
At higher frequencies there is some sort of envelope processing.

There were studies back from the ´70s which tested audibility of presentations of the same spectral content in a stimulus with normal and reversed order.

Questionable is the range of temporal resolution, see the discussions of Kunchur´s work or:

Krumbholz et al., ´Microsecond temporal resolution in monaural hearing
without spectral cues?´
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113 (5), May 2003
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 05:51 PM   #25958
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
The test, designed by Hawksford, was discussed earlier in this thread.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 06:23 PM   #25959
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Now, take speakers that can be heard by whole body, and repeat the test. As I said, phase coherence is vital in fooling imagination as if sounds are real, especially when you have adequate low frequency reproduction. It is well heard on percussions, even on triangles.

However, when you hear "Nice quality of reproduction through headphones" it is a different story. "Nice quality" and "real sounds" are different things. The question is about realism.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2012, 06:36 PM   #25960
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
As i said before, I couldn't distinguish them via speakers, only with headphones.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2