Actually it is a mix of both dependent on the frequency range, at lower frequencies it is mainly the phase difference between both ears while at higher frequencies it is more the level difference. (and then there is kind of a transistion region
).In real life visual input even might help in localization and even microadjustment of the hearing apparatus in the direction of a sound source happens.
Whereas I do. I would like the experience of the albert hall (in the places I can afford to stand). And having heard what a good system*, well setup, with carefully chosen music can do (albeit with spoilers) I want that. I got close when I had the den in chicago all to myself.
* Dave Wilson 1992 london hifi show. Watt/puppy/whow. He played a choral piece recorded in a cathederal. The choir appeared to be 30 feet behind the rear wall of the room. How much of that was the system and recording and how much was him telling us what we would hear is of course up to interpretion, but still the best 'hifi demo' I have attended. Has set my expectations of what I want my system to be able to do if I get a decent room again. In the meantime Rachmaninoff playing his own piano works transcribed from 78s gets the goosebumps going as well as anything mono. I suppose I am saying that musical enjoyment and fidelity are not necessarily linked.
The electrical bit is done from source to speaker terminals, after that, all bets are off
It isn't actually phase that is so important, at least at higher frequencies. Group delay, the rate of change of phase with respect to frequency is something that is understood by some engineers as potentially objectionable in some cases.
At lower frequencies and in transient conditions, phase can be audible because of its effect on wave shape. For continuous waves at higher frequencies, phase tends to much less audible, at least for most people.
But, look, there are other things besides frequency and phase that can be important. There are various kinds of distortion. There is noise floor modulation in sigma-delta dacs, which some people find very objectionable.
Also, IMHO, there has been a lot of incomplete research about what can be audible under different circumstances. The big problem there is that nobody wants to pay for the very expensive research it would take to come a lot closer to completing our understanding.
There is a possibility that Billshurv will come to visit me in a few months. If he does, I'm sure it will be an eye opener for him. He can see for himself that changing low order harmonic distortion a few dB down around -120dB and buried in noise can be audible even by him under some circumstances. It is mind boggling and hard to understand and hard to believe. I don't know why it is audible, I didn't expect it to be. I did some experiments to see the smallest change I could hear and to find my preference for some amount of low level low order distortion. Again, I observed things I completely didn't expect. If Bill can show me where I am making some mistake, great, then a mystery can be solved, but for now I barely dare to speak of it because it is so hard to believe. Yet, there it is. And I'm not the only one who can hear it either.
So, assuming for the moment what I have observed can be verified and replicated, then what? We are still left with a very vexing set of problems. People can incredibly misjudge the sound of something if it is seen or otherwise known what it is that is being listened to. The knowing changes the focus of listening. One is 'primed' to listen in a particular way to particular aspects of the sound. The illusion is incredibly convincing. Virtually impossible or completely impossible to overcome by knowing it is illusory. Only some kind of blind testing or blind listening where the listener does not know anything about what is being listened to except the sound itself is without biased illusion. However, Foobar ABX and ABX in general is not the most sensitive test for determining very low levels of audibility, IMHO. It may seem that way to people who sit in a chair and try to reason their way to truth, but I personally don't believe scientific truth can be found through philosophical type linguistic reasoning. That cannot be the whole scientific method. We have to learn by way of carefully designed and conducted controlled and replicated experimentation. Again, for low level audibility research covering the abilities of 100% of the human population, it has never been done and most likely never will be done. It is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. So, people do what people do, they make up stories to confirm their preexisting beliefs. Some do, at least. Particularly people who like to argue about it in forums. Other people just don't care, and a few people are happy to say they don't know everything and hope to learn a bit more as time goes on. I put myself in that latter group. I keep finding things I don't expect. I started out as a skeptic, but I am and was a skeptic that can hear some things like distortion quite skillfully, and I am pretty good at experimenting when I have the time and interest to do it well. All I can say is, we'll see. Nothing still controversial can be settled in this instant, it will take time and lots of patience.
Last edited:
Bill when I mentioned ADSR it was in relation to cymbals, real cymbals and nothing to do with synthesised cymbals. Cymbals are described as having 'tone', and clarity of reproduction of this 'tone' is what I am referring to and not to a single sine wave. When you have heard really low 'close in' jitter playback of cymbals, anything else reproduces as sounding like white noise bursts in comparison. Same with bass and low bass, close in jitter causes lousy sense of 'power' and lousy separation of bass notes and strings. I hope that helps.
Dan.
Dan.
I have never come across the term ADSR outside of a synthesizer where ADSR are the adjustments possible on an envelope generator.
All most of us can do is say stuff on forums, some more than others, when occasionally, someone tries to do something more practical that forum members can get involved with their attempts are poo-pooed usually by the same members who say a lot but do a little.
Thanks, Jakob - I eventually found the presentation from which that slide came - it's slide 9 from here
Thanks OS
I was just surmising about a possible relationship between "perceptual narrowing" that happens naturally during our early development (about >6 months) - I also found that "perceptual narrowing" change in the auditory perception system of general interest to what we are discussing here but it's not "taught", as in parents or society teaching a child how to perceive, it's the general mechanism for how our brain works - the plasticity is related to this - basically the sounds we hear constantly are what become our soundscape from which learning space our auditory perception develops it's internalized models. Part of this is the physiological mechanism being efficient with its resources & moving from the generalized ability to differentiate subtle sound differences (as is natural in the < 6months baby) to more specialized function where the environmental sounds are given more processing attention & therefore we lose the natural generic ability to differentiate
i agree with the general thrust of your comments castigating the excesses of capitalism unfortunately all too often the norm.
I've also experienced the opening of the "doors of perception"
The electrical bit is done from source to speaker terminals, after that, all bets are off
Hey, we're not going to get into that ol' pie fight one-sided statement which basically ignores all that has been said up to now on this thread so best to just park it, I reckon.
ADSR = Attack, decay, Sustain, release - describes the stages of the sound envelope of all sounds, I believe
Fair enough, but as far as I'm aware it has yet to be proven that any of these very small effects are audible? Whereas the effects of speakers and rooms in auditory perception are very audible and provable.
Release makes no sense for natural sounds.
It is what happens electrically after you let go of the key on your synthesizer.
Sustain makes no sense for cymbals. A cymbal sound only has attack and decay, no sustain or release if you were to simulate a cymbal with a synth.
Attack would also need to be very close to zero.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.