Get a mac..😀
I concur with your assessment.
Here, I disagree with your assessment.. To the best of my recollection, he has really not made a statement regarding audibility. He did state that ""as long as cable lengths were the same""....., but that was not a direct audibility thing.
Cheers, John
Silly waki..
It is english..I've made the assumption that this is your native language.edit: in fact, in looking at your flag, it is clear that we are indeed seperated by a common language..
There is a clean distinction between stating that one is condescending, and stating that one comes across as condescending.
The first is a statement of absolute, which has a high bar to exceed, the second is one of relativity, a statement that others can come away with that feeling.
Given the language possibilities within a world wide forum, there are certainly instances where one makes condescending remarks without intention, and instances where it was on purpose.
Providing feedback allows for self review should the affect be unintended.
Unlike you, whose purpose appears rather clear. You attacked me on another forum, you persist here. Please desist.
Cheers, John
It's separated, John.
I'm happy to leave the audience to judge your intention in this case.
w
As it should have been. We don't need you to bring your animosity everywhere you go.
I liked it better when you admitted your behaviour was unbecoming on the other forum.. with a simple...ok, got it..
Cheers, John
@ jneutron,
the audibility of frequency dependent group delays was covered in:
Blauert, J. und Laws, P.: "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478–1483, May 1978
the audibility of frequency dependent group delays was covered in:
Blauert, J. und Laws, P.: "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478–1483, May 1978
Ah, thank you very much. My audibility stuff is in a different location, I'll have to see if I have that one.
The title appears to be targeting the electroacoustical system rather than the audibility aspect. Did they perform controlled audibility tests that would meet Sy's criteria?🙂
Cheers, John
Yeah, furthermore they even meet some of my criteria. 😉
At least afair, but i have to reread it. They concentrated on the audibility of identical frequency dependent group delay in both channels. The stimuli were presented diotic via an open headphone.
Last edited:
Ah, bummer. The open room equivalent would be the use of a septum absorber down the room center...sigh. My guess is that there will be some difference between completely isolated left-right, and the delayed crosstalk problem inherent in a real room with speakers.
hmm. What is an open headphone? Does that mean the opposing ear gets some inverted signal via air?
David Griesinger did some great work, but I believe he left a lot out of his published stuff due to the fact that he probably pays a mortgage on this stuff...go figure..
Again, thanks..
Cheers, John
a table of the Blauert results is in Group delay and phase delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
more has been done for loudspeaker XO phase audibility, but the conditions are "extreme" relative to the differential group dealy within the audio band expected from IC that could be modeled as a few RLC (add a few R for "G" too if you want) sections
in the loudspeaker XO or inserted all pass filter examples the differential group delay is varying order of mS within the audio band
for audio IC relevant models the peak delays of order of uS occur at MHz, the differential delay for any frequency pair below 20 KHz is sub nS
open headphone drivers have an open back, no sealed cavity, some "natural crossfeed" - though avoiding cavity resonance, reduced weight are likely more important - most full size "audiophile" headphones today are open construction
more has been done for loudspeaker XO phase audibility, but the conditions are "extreme" relative to the differential group dealy within the audio band expected from IC that could be modeled as a few RLC (add a few R for "G" too if you want) sections
in the loudspeaker XO or inserted all pass filter examples the differential group delay is varying order of mS within the audio band
for audio IC relevant models the peak delays of order of uS occur at MHz, the differential delay for any frequency pair below 20 KHz is sub nS
open headphone drivers have an open back, no sealed cavity, some "natural crossfeed" - though avoiding cavity resonance, reduced weight are likely more important - most full size "audiophile" headphones today are open construction
Last edited:
Ah, no wonder the disconnect between us..
You linked to a single speaker group delay thing. (The wiki link to blauert refused to open, but the main one did.)
I am speaking about interaural differences, the ability of humans to detect the apparent shift of the location of a synthetic image location based on the interaural time difference and the interaural intensity difference. edit: and I stated very clearly, not just a symmetrical signal subject to the same delays per channel, but an asymmetric signal which produces a synthetic image which has an angular separation from on axis. It also helps (IMHO) if there are synthetic images located on axis which force the listener to aquire the on axis image at the same time.
We are speaking about different animals..
Had you followed my discussion with df96, you would have noted that:
1. I provided a graph which shows the delay of settling time for a mismatch of 50:1 (load low pure resistive) of about 6 microseconds, clearly above "sub nanoseconds".
2. Shadowitz indeed invokes microsecond settling delays without even stating line to load ratio.
3. IC's suffer line to load ratios of what, 50ohm cable to 10K ohm input,..200:1 max? (load high pure resistive).
Honestly, I'd be elated to discover that anybody took the time to follow that discussion...indeed, very dry reading, and I was a participant..😱
And, thanks for the link..good info.
Cheers, John
ps. Ah, thank you for the open headphone description.
pps. I was provided a link to the Blauert paper by a kind person.thank you.. Apparently, diotic, dichotic are two beasts, diotic being same content on both channels simultaneously, dichotic being independent content per ear, and mono appears to be one ear only..
Last edited:
Oh BTW, it's common to derive the telegraphers equation in the context of infinite lines, but it's entirely possible to do it from infinitesimals entirely without reference to infinite lines. Even a poor antenna designer can do that...
w
w
So then jump right on in and provide a derivation which covers mismatched loads at audio frequencies..
Cheers, John
I don't remember seeing that. I must have missed a few posts.jneutron said:
Would it help if I said that for a while I genuinely wondered if you had spotted a weakness in the standard transmission line model which the rest us had ignored? That was partly why I was trying to clarify your exact view and see where it differed from what I understand to be the standard model. I found it difficult to pin you down. Anyway, I should have kept to the technical debate and not speculated about the reasons behind any differences. I apologise for any offence caused.
Discussion with you has been very pleasant other than some mis-communications..that is certainly an expectation when there is no face to face. I also apologize to you..
ps..had I found a weakness in the standard model, I wouldn't be presenting it on a forum..I'd be publishing in Physica A, B, or C, and renting a tux.
What I considered "ignored" is just the ramification of large line to load mismatch and it's effect on audio systems. I had to start somewhere, the simple models are the best to start with, no?
The graph was posted in post number 796. It's on page 80 for me, I don't know what firefox does.
Cheers, John
Here are 4 separate derivations, none of which mention the word infinite.
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~feldman/apps/telegrph.pdf
Telegrapher's Equations
Transmission lines
This one is particularly good, it has both time and frequency domains...
The Telegrapher's Equation
w
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~feldman/apps/telegrph.pdf
Telegrapher's Equations
Transmission lines
This one is particularly good, it has both time and frequency domains...
The Telegrapher's Equation
w
- Status
- Not open for further replies.