She might disagree
Evelyn Glennie: How to truly listen | Video on TED.com
It is a bit more complicated than ear drum vs. tactile, they need each other as well as the eyes sometimes.
That is amazing and also a very special case. Nevertheless, it doesn't tell us how much people with normal hearing utilize tactile input to form an auditory event.
BTW I knew some 10-15 years ago a man that was working for Ford and was moving to Strasbourg in Europe, working for 'sounds reduction' and optimization in cars.
And I voluntarily misquoted
because I simply don't understand the quoted one !
Last edited:
That's fine, but it is also not the solution - the research shows that. Claus Genuit at Head did a lot of this work when I was working with him back in the 80's. He/we found that you had to have some properly adjust LF SPL around the torso to get the correct feeling of being in a car. Just shaking the seat was not enough.
In a conversation I once had with Zwicker (I do respect you Germans in acoustics!) he said that headphones would never be exactly correct at LFs because while we do not react to VLF as sound they do strongly affect the auditory system through its nonlinearities.
This was all in relation to vehicle noise which is at a pretty high SPL, but the facts are clear that SPL at LFs is more than simply an eardrum effect.
Did I ever tell you the story about how my wife and I met a decade before we ever got married and did not remember each other. We discovered this once when we were talking about Zwicker and how she had met him at a place that I was at as well. So she and I had to have at least been in the same room at the same time - and it was a pretty small room. We clearly didn't make much impact on each other at the time! But then we were both in the room with Zwicker who was a very charismatic individual.
But HPs negate the second evolvement is space ( so -in time).
You seem to mismatch the things, as you're putting in evidence the skeleton transmission when talking about the torso or tactile sensation, when you and I simply accepted the fact that it ( may...still not studied ) take only minor part in sound perception.
Then there's the earing part, which is still in connession with the brain.
Strange, humans...
You seem to mismatch the things, as you're putting in evidence the skeleton transmission when talking about the torso or tactile sensation, when you and I simply accepted the fact that it ( may...still not studied
) take only minor part in sound perception.Then there's the earing part, which is still in connession with the brain.
Strange, humans...
Pretty much!
..yes, but convolving to binaural isn't the same as recording in binaural. So from the recording-end of the chain alone it's something of a non-starter.
Then there is physical format itself.
IF given the opportunity, most would prefer to listen through loudspeakers instead of headphones (for any number of reasons beyond tactile).
Of course the irony is that those same grouping of people will give up loudspeaker listening for the shear utility of headphones, principally mobility, isolation, & pricing DESPITE gross deficiencies (..like typical stereo recordings with "in head" results, lack of tactile effects, etc..)
It's quite the conundrum.
A *nearly* ideal method of reproduction (that's *way* beyond any other), a vast user base that can make use of it (and enhance it with "shakers" if needed), and almost no market penetration despite this.
Last edited:
Of course not but with headphones one can simulate any loudspeaker and room setup. Imagine the possibilities.
-yes, but why would you want to simulate an inferior format? (..well, other than for research.)
Better to just convolve to binaural than simulate any loudspeaker room setup.
This is *precisely* the question I asked myself in relation to purchasing the Smyth unit.
-and for me the answer was: I wouldn't.
Hearing-and-the-future-of-loudspeaker-design
The thread's title explains it all.
OP asked why and how wouldn't DSP be a betterment for original systems.
For me, even the infamous 'loudness button' is a strange way to overcome some issues. Do I need a mixed pole filter ( ? ) on the signal path at very low levels of listening or am I trying to achieve the sensation of instruments playing by trying to let the chain introduce less errors ?
So if you follow me, I might say that I know that till the speakers the sound
( the signal at line level and the powered one ) is perfect and after is a mess.
My self-delivered mission is to extablish what happens in the trasduction stage and that involves not merely mechanic process but it reflectes toward the listener. And that's a big problem, but negating the story of the sound itself by deliberately make it closer to the ears - so no evolution in the ambient- is not the solution, not at all !
So here's DIY and most of us are proud of our creations, as other commercial proposals didn't meet absolutely the pre-requisites I was expecting. Nor they are knowing what they are delivering. But even if I build the most perfect speaker and insert it after a perfect 'chain' and I hear to the sound that exits from this processment, I'm still not happy.
Why ? Because it didn't meet my expectations...or I wasn't in the mood.
So what do I do ? Still applying myself on the matter...
The thread's title explains it all.
OP asked why and how wouldn't DSP be a betterment for original systems.
For me, even the infamous 'loudness button' is a strange way to overcome some issues. Do I need a mixed pole filter ( ? ) on the signal path at very low levels of listening or am I trying to achieve the sensation of instruments playing by trying to let the chain introduce less errors ?
So if you follow me, I might say that I know that till the speakers the sound
( the signal at line level and the powered one ) is perfect and after is a mess.
My self-delivered mission is to extablish what happens in the trasduction stage and that involves not merely mechanic process but it reflectes toward the listener. And that's a big problem, but negating the story of the sound itself by deliberately make it closer to the ears - so no evolution in the ambient- is not the solution, not at all !
So here's DIY and most of us are proud of our creations, as other commercial proposals didn't meet absolutely the pre-requisites I was expecting. Nor they are knowing what they are delivering. But even if I build the most perfect speaker and insert it after a perfect 'chain' and I hear to the sound that exits from this processment, I'm still not happy.
Why ? Because it didn't meet my expectations...or I wasn't in the mood.
So what do I do ? Still applying myself on the matter...
-yes, but why would you want to simulate an inferior format? (..well, other than for research.)
Better to just convolve to binaural than simulate any loudspeaker room setup.
This is *precisely* the question I asked myself in relation to purchasing the Smyth unit.
-and for me the answer was: I wouldn't.
Two reasons that may not apply to you: You can't afford to build a space with certain acoustic properties. You can't afford certain speakers.
But my point was, with a headphone based VR simulator you can do whatever you want: simulate any number of real speakers, any number of near-perfect speakers. Have crosstalk, eliminate crosstalk. Apply matrixing or any other kind of upmix. Change room acoustics. Move speakers to different locations. Besides the fact that some of this can't be done with real loudspeakers in real rooms, how much would that cost to do in the real world?
I don't know what's the meaning of riddles...well..maybe.
Of course a very light membrane will have less ringing and a prompter response at the impulse, faster decay, it would not move much air...but if you confine it to the very near-near field
And, yes, HPs might be a nice model but they do negate the second evolvement in space and time - the first is the original event that dictates the second - and so the next generation of loudspeakers would have to take in consideration the rise-decay time and sustain of which the music -and the sound of music- is made by.How do you achieve this ?
By manipulating the original event to fit your tastes or whatever ?
DSP does that
Of course a very light membrane will have less ringing and a prompter response at the impulse, faster decay, it would not move much air...but if you confine it to the very near-near field
And, yes, HPs might be a nice model but they do negate the second evolvement in space and time - the first is the original event that dictates the second - and so the next generation of loudspeakers would have to take in consideration the rise-decay time and sustain of which the music -and the sound of music- is made by.How do you achieve this ?
By manipulating the original event to fit your tastes or whatever ?
DSP does that
^
What is "the second evolvement in space and time"? The speaker/room interaction when a recording is played back? If yes, this is simply the transfer function from a speaker to the ears. It can be measured and applied to headphone playback by convolution. That's how the Smyth Realiser works.
What is "the second evolvement in space and time"? The speaker/room interaction when a recording is played back? If yes, this is simply the transfer function from a speaker to the ears. It can be measured and applied to headphone playback by convolution. That's how the Smyth Realiser works.
Markus - now you sound like the guy who just wants to win the argument! I never took a position on headphones right, wrong or indifferent. I was simply correcting errors in your statements.
Having heard great binaural recordings, it is clear that headphones are ideal at the "You are there." illusion. LF SPL augmentation will improve that illusion. But I prefer loudspeakers for the "They are here." illusion of recordings made deliberately for two channel. Yet, when I am travelling I use headphones far more than I listen to loudspeakers, so their performance is critical to me
Hi Jason,
I can feel vibrations through the floor/chair sometimes using headphones only, even though there is nothing there...
This one usually does that, for me:
Freesound.org - "building work.flac" by dwareing
Exactly the "practical" approach I was talking about
By the way, I don't think there are many recordings compatible with crosstalk cancellation. Stereo is NOT a binaural reproduction technique. It works BECAUSE of crosstalk. At the same time crosstalk introduces significant errors.
Practical crosstalk cancellation. is not the same as using headphones. You are exposed to reflected sounds from the room. It is also impractical to cancel at very low frequencies as that would require drive levels approching infinity. It can, and to a varying extent (depending on the filter) does, convert level differences to ITDs, In practice it does work quite well with stereo and is also somewhat flawed for binaural, for the above reasons..
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.