There are few controls needed nor a DBLT is needed to hear and perceive a center image in a 2 channel system. Just ask a lot of people with different 2channel systems etc etc and if they say they hear a center image then they Do hear a center image.
Whether it is a center image or any other perceptual description for what is being heard and described, there is a scientific explanation -- some times we know the scientific answer and sometimes we dont. When we dont... just do not be so quick to deny the commonly expressed perception, though.
This is where I say it is "as if" there was a center speaker/channel or what ever a particular description suggests.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I agree that the "better looking" square response is an indication for a "technical better" amp considering stability issues. But I see strictly no evidence that the squareness of test signals must be the reason for you perceiving different sound quality. And by the way, these test conditions are far from being realistic.
Anyone who would be willing to prove quality of his ears and his preferences would be cordially welcome:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/273938-subjective-listening-test.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/273938-subjective-listening-test.html
You mixed that up- it should have been:
"Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor!" (SCR)
Sorry, does only make sense in german.....
Ich Danke Ihnen.
If you're trying to establish it as a fact (which in this case has already been done- this was just an example of a well-known and non-controversial example of the brain perceiving something that's not there), then yes, you absolutely need controls. Refusing to use basic controls is what separates the hucksters and charlatans from ethical and competent researchers.
This may be where arguments begin...... Many people, who are not trying to establish fact, will just agree they hear no change or they do. And, from a consensus of opinion based upon the majority hearing IT (or not) the same described way... will accept THAT and move on. They dont need to know if it is because of material behavior or jitter or what ever. Nor a DBLT.
Sometimes, a correlation may exist between a test and listening descriptions which seems plausable. But if it is important enough to want to figure out why the 'as if' exists (and it does if a majority hear it), then by all means figure it out scientifically and add it to the explanation of what is heard. Though the 'center channel' affect heard isnt made more true by it.
Comment ,pls?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I understand that there is a minority of the population that doesn't perceive a phantom center
a 3rd center channel is invaluable for improved imaging/image stability over stereo - known very early on - Mercury "Living Presence" recordings were done 3 channel
but simple analog coding schemes for the 2 channels of stereo were cheap and easy for phono and radio which gave stereo the win commercially
and a lot of system have been proposed: Wendy Carlos Gosurround
a 3rd center channel is invaluable for improved imaging/image stability over stereo - known very early on - Mercury "Living Presence" recordings were done 3 channel
but simple analog coding schemes for the 2 channels of stereo were cheap and easy for phono and radio which gave stereo the win commercially
and a lot of system have been proposed: Wendy Carlos Gosurround
Geez,
This is like the people who say we never went to the moon, how do you prove that? Of course I believe we did but so many think the whole thing was staged, what proof do you offer in that case? Many times we believe with no dblt or many other objective experiments, actual observation is all that is necessary many times but in many instances of course we need to do very well designed scientific studies, but not every time.
This is like the people who say we never went to the moon, how do you prove that? Of course I believe we did but so many think the whole thing was staged, what proof do you offer in that case? Many times we believe with no dblt or many other objective experiments, actual observation is all that is necessary many times but in many instances of course we need to do very well designed scientific studies, but not every time.
Different sorts of facts are demonstrated using different sorts of experimental methods. That seems like a trivial statement, but it's often not fully understood, especially in the fairy tale land of fashion audio.
DBTs are necessary for experiments involving human senses or other physiological responses. If no controls are used, what you've got is empty claims with no value other than to keep the true believers believing.
For info on verifying the moon landing, Google "retroreflector."
DBTs are necessary for experiments involving human senses or other physiological responses. If no controls are used, what you've got is empty claims with no value other than to keep the true believers believing.
For info on verifying the moon landing, Google "retroreflector."
I tried it back then and it works very well to keep the 'center' image centered when moving slightly to the left and right...... which isnt the case with just 2 channels. A simple sum and level blend into a center amp/speaker gives excellent result. Everyone should try it. You might just leave it in always.
Which moves the discussion needle to surround or multi-channel systems. That physical center channel can be very helpful in imaging placement.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
You people have been busy overnight again! Talking about being sensitive in the hearing, I would find it a waste of time trying to find differences in sound - the only thing I'm interested in is whether it comes up to a certain standard; I have a selection of recordings which have certain attributes that cause systems with flaws to audibly misbehave in a prominent way, dramatically so sometimes, and using them the simple process is to determine which flaws a system has, and then eliminate those. When no audible flaws remain, then the system is up to scratch.
It seems to me you're under the illusion that the 'I of the vortex' is you. It's self-evident that that's not the case. Libet's experiments bore this out.
How do I know the Aliens didn't leave those behind on the moon? You know the ones with the hidden base on the dark side of the moon.
Careful that Buzz Aldrin doesn't punch you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.