And could you maybe expound on why you think the ear/brain are time variant? And maybe explain a little better what self correlated masking is?
I have not made up my mind. I am just following one road according to principles that have proven to be correct. No vicious circles.....
Until now it has proven to be by far the best!
About Lorenzo Russo I can ask for some of his articles, published in Italian reviews over the years.
In the meantime....
Attachments
Obviously, to completely distract the listener from paying any attention to the source material. 🙂
It is usual in statistics to assume that any natural system is time variant.
You then have to take successive samples of the same size to establish the amount of variation in time.
These samples should also be a big enough to make sure that if you find a difference when comparing a previous sample of the same domain with a later one, it is a reflection of a real change and not just something you missed the first time.
If you extrapolate this trend and find that the next sample you take is in accord with this extrapolation then you have began to establish a predictive model, i.e. a scientific theory.
Audio testing of the sort we are after differs in that the domain we want to test is the entire population of listeners, and although an Individual or group thereof might well vary in time, it is very unlikely that an entire population will vary in time in exactly the same way.
In this way you can then remove time variance by a random choice of subjects involved in a particular test, and trend discernible then being true of all people in the domain, rather than a measure of the time variance of a particular sub group.
In designing experiments this is what reputable researchers like Toole do.
The assertion that testing that emphasis's the frequency domain is therefore invalid has nothing to do with the time variance of a population, since this is controlled for in a valid double blind test.
Testing that emphasis's the frequency at the expense of the time domain is another matter.
rcw.
You then have to take successive samples of the same size to establish the amount of variation in time.
These samples should also be a big enough to make sure that if you find a difference when comparing a previous sample of the same domain with a later one, it is a reflection of a real change and not just something you missed the first time.
If you extrapolate this trend and find that the next sample you take is in accord with this extrapolation then you have began to establish a predictive model, i.e. a scientific theory.
Audio testing of the sort we are after differs in that the domain we want to test is the entire population of listeners, and although an Individual or group thereof might well vary in time, it is very unlikely that an entire population will vary in time in exactly the same way.
In this way you can then remove time variance by a random choice of subjects involved in a particular test, and trend discernible then being true of all people in the domain, rather than a measure of the time variance of a particular sub group.
In designing experiments this is what reputable researchers like Toole do.
The assertion that testing that emphasis's the frequency domain is therefore invalid has nothing to do with the time variance of a population, since this is controlled for in a valid double blind test.
Testing that emphasis's the frequency at the expense of the time domain is another matter.
rcw.
Logical point- real instruments always sound real, irrespective of the listener's mood or phase of the moon.
The basic principle is just one preserve: the original recorded sequence.
This is the same for the entire system, from the source to the speakers.
To achieve this goal you need ideally infinite (mechanical) rigidity and total mechanical decoupling of each part from the external world.
In practice this is impossible and you accept to commit yourself with the minimum error.
In this specific case, the speakers are subsonically coupled to the outer world.
This means they can just be vibrate at frequencies equal (or below) to a certain value: 1Hz or less in this case. Regardless of incoming or exiting vibrations those can dissipate their energy only at those very low frequencies.
In other words the loudspeakers are vibration free in the audio band and well beyond. In this way you have achieved your goal in practice.
The evident acoustic material around is to control the radiation out of the "cone" of your interest. The combination of the drivers is so that you get the best alignment in the time domain.
Last edited:
I have a radical thought to share...
Individual perceptions are incommensurable with an objective standard except in the abstract referential realm of language and subjective expression.
Although I realize this is an axiom drawn from evolutionary biology and structural neuro-linguistics and therefore truly beyond the scope of simple audio analysis, it is none the less true.
Like quantum-mechanics, the metrics of perception are driven by probabilistic processes as opposed to absolute ones. As Einstein asserted, there is no preferred frame, meaning that there is no one absolute position from which to report experience.
Google it if you have a year or two.
The incessant argument over testing methodologies ignores and belies the fundamental truth that music is interpreted "semiotically," that is, in a symbolic or meta-referential way further abstracted by the "intentionality" of the listener.
As a designer, once you have achieved the base-line of accuracy defined by the accepted canon of objective acoustic, electrical and electronic physics, to talk of properties beyond the measurable peoperties of the device is bunk.
What isn't bunk is whether the subjective experience of the listener is worth while to them. Will they blow time just listening to your gear as opposed to paying bills or watching hockey?
Soon you will be dead, and so will your listener - so, what's important?
The subjective experience.
Tune it until they like it - [edit] - whatever it takes!
Regards,
Tom
PS. Very cool stuff by the way!
Individual perceptions are incommensurable with an objective standard except in the abstract referential realm of language and subjective expression.
Although I realize this is an axiom drawn from evolutionary biology and structural neuro-linguistics and therefore truly beyond the scope of simple audio analysis, it is none the less true.
Like quantum-mechanics, the metrics of perception are driven by probabilistic processes as opposed to absolute ones. As Einstein asserted, there is no preferred frame, meaning that there is no one absolute position from which to report experience.
Google it if you have a year or two.
The incessant argument over testing methodologies ignores and belies the fundamental truth that music is interpreted "semiotically," that is, in a symbolic or meta-referential way further abstracted by the "intentionality" of the listener.
As a designer, once you have achieved the base-line of accuracy defined by the accepted canon of objective acoustic, electrical and electronic physics, to talk of properties beyond the measurable peoperties of the device is bunk.
What isn't bunk is whether the subjective experience of the listener is worth while to them. Will they blow time just listening to your gear as opposed to paying bills or watching hockey?
Soon you will be dead, and so will your listener - so, what's important?
The subjective experience.
Tune it until they like it - [edit] - whatever it takes!
Regards,
Tom
PS. Very cool stuff by the way!
Last edited:
Just in case you hadn't noticed - this is DIYaudio. The listener is the designer, except for the cases where people are selling stuff. Such people are in their own marketing world of trying to convince others that they are the chosen gurus.
As to "what has happened to DIYaudio", it's become overrun by cranks without even a rudimentary capacity for critical thinking, yet having some irresistible urge to spew their fallacy-riddled philosophy at people who actually know what's going on.
Ouch! I surely didn't mean to preach or offend...
I meant to point up the impossibility of satisfying everyone with a single approach.
I have nothing to sell and have been an amateur designer for about five years and and member of this board for three or so.
Of what little I do know, much of it I learned here from the generous folk who populate this board - to whom I owe much thanks.
So, please accept my apologies for posting, and even after all this time I don't think I'll do it again.
G'nite and thanks.
Tom
[edit] I'm kinda bummed you chowed on me. I meant no harm and hurt no-one. No matter what you felt I didn't deserve such a mean-spirited response.
I meant to point up the impossibility of satisfying everyone with a single approach.
I have nothing to sell and have been an amateur designer for about five years and and member of this board for three or so.
Of what little I do know, much of it I learned here from the generous folk who populate this board - to whom I owe much thanks.
So, please accept my apologies for posting, and even after all this time I don't think I'll do it again.
G'nite and thanks.
Tom
[edit] I'm kinda bummed you chowed on me. I meant no harm and hurt no-one. No matter what you felt I didn't deserve such a mean-spirited response.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.