Measurements are taken in an untreated room, preferably with high ceiling. Gating enables so called "quasi-anechoic" measurements. Member @napilopez kindly made wonderful tutorial:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pinoramas-with-rew-and-vituixcad.21860/unread
.I think it's based on limiting the IR window. I recommend you do this simple experiment. Play a 1000 hertz with REW, Open the RTA window to see the SPL then move your body. The smallest change in our body position changes the SPL significantly unless we leave the room when the wave is played. I actually want to say the measurement must be performed in an isolated place in order to get accurate results. Thank you for your suggestion. I'll try the said method.
Interesting, according to an intercepted Alien Intelligence message they are considered human :
"An audiophile is someone who has a passionate interest in high-quality audio reproduction, often seeking the best sound equipment and meticulously fine-tuning their audio setup to achieve optimal sound quality."
🤣😎🙃
"An audiophile is someone who has a passionate interest in high-quality audio reproduction, often seeking the best sound equipment and meticulously fine-tuning their audio setup to achieve optimal sound quality."
🤣😎🙃
Well, according to wave theory, you might intercept the perturbation at the womb (?) or at the bump, and 20-20000 Hz means 2 cm to ~20 m wavelength, your head/pinna being~17 cm...
Diffraction is a b.tch, but you are not supposed to move around when doing measurements either... no need to leave the room, just stay static at a 'good' distance from the mic setup ( our body have an absorbsion coefficient to it and at 1000hz it's undoubtly quite significant).
Isolated to low end and/or audio pollution can be an issue. But at night it usually lessen.
This is a very unscientific statement. This attribute, to not hear directional sounds below 100hz, is untrue, and room mode dependent as well as proximity dependent.
You ear can hear all the same spl differences from ear to ear as any other frequency but when a room mode is excited if you've ever seen how the manifest in the terms spl vs 3d space, its easy to see how directionality is lost, within a room mode.... Room modes are not omnipresent below the Schroeder. Where ever a mode is absent, the spl difference from ear to ear shall be enough to detect direction.
We were talking the ability to hear direction, not room modes
In all main and known acoustic and psycho-acoustic science books you can read about this.
Can't get more scientific then that.
Btw, room modes are not directional, (otherwise they wouldn't be modes to begin with!!!) only depending on the coordinates in space in a certain room.
These two things are definitely not the same thing.
Don't mix up the terminology.
Except we don't rely on SPL differences to extract direction on low end but on phase differences ( the 'gray area' at which we switch from delta phase to delta spl is circa 1khz).
That said, i kinda agree with your initial comment, room mode can mess this up.
I already told and repeat, the global ability of human B_force refers too are an average, some are outside of this average (like for everything). Outside ( with no room mode) i've been able to hear directionality below 80hz... never happened in a room though.
But i felt stereo sub to be different in rendering than 2xmono or multiple mono subs in room.
I want to show my experience with a picture. As you know, for an active cardioid speaker, the back driver must remove the back wave produced by the front driver. So, If the directivity plot of the antinoise-driver is the same as the front driver after 90 degrees the back effect will be removed. The plot shape is more complicated after 90 degrees. The reason why I recommend to get an accurate response is that.
If you simulate the projects with Akabak, you will find that the SPL must be equal at all points to get cardioid.
If you simulate the projects with Akabak, you will find that the SPL must be equal at all points to get cardioid.
My first thought was; no you don't use spl difference, I definitely do lol
The quality that room modes are not directional is the actual aspect that hides the direction of the source
I've never personally came across any studies that were done in a way that I thought respectable can you point me to some please
I can create up to a 6 inch difference between me and the source without even entertaining whatever filter effects of attenuation the shape of my head will create to the farthest ear and you're telling me that I won't be able to hear the difference in about 1.4db.... I disagree
It is only where the room modes skew the distance relationship, that distance is not perceivable
Last edited:
Well, you are against 100 years of experience regarding this: X/Y and A/B mics couple are the real world application of this: X/Y are lean about room ambience, A/B are lousy about imaging to say the least. One is coincident with angled capsule based relying on delta spl, the other is spaced with omni capsule relying on delta phase...
The 17cm average distance between our ears doesn't allow for delta spl in low freq.
That said i won't tell you what you hear Camplo, and as an odd too regarding some average human capacity...
But if you hear the difference between an A/B and X/Y then you are not ( totally) an alien.
I just read this in your post. 👍 I don't understand why as a scientist one should have any type of respect for any person who wasn't qualified as a professional listener. We use professional critics in many areas but in audio we seem to have given lax criticism on who is listening. There are professional taste testers for a reason and the absence of the professional listener to judge what is being heard is a missing element of audio.
This is not to say that there is no usefulness in what the average person is hearing. The idea that the average listener can be trained to be a better listener gives light to the idea that there should be some disregard for what the average listener his hearing.
If you bring to light how talented a professional taste tester can actually be I think that gives insight to the quality of critique we could potentially have from a panel of professional listeners
What if we give an eye test to everybody but then say that there are no wrong answers.... that is the equivalent of including the opinion on sonics from the test subject lacking in the qualities needed to be a great listener
Last edited:
So I go to my desk, play a song, apply low pass
Sorry the sub is on my left, I can hear it louder in my left ear.... if I turn my chair and face my right ear.... I can tell its louder in right ear...Who can't do this?
This sub is 1m and corner loaded. I wanted to talk about how I can hear the corner now as opposed to the how the bass was percieved being near the middle of the room, upstairs, but I should save it for my thread.
Put 100Hz sine tone on it, can you localize that?
100Hz tone is 3.4m long, while distance between ears about what 0.17m, roughly 20x less. This means pressure at both ears is nearly the same at any given moment / direction and I'd imagine it could be quite hard to hear direction, but let's not imagine there is studies that have tested localization and we should take those.
In practice, a sub with low pass filter could be quite localizable though, as you've noticed. Likely due to many reasons. One is too low order low pass filter: make sure your filter is acoustic and not electrical, unfiltered sub output is likely rising towards highs all the way to mids, which means that for example 2nd order electrical low pass filter would make acoustic output merely flatten or slightly dropping, acoustic output extends far beyond the electrical filter. Even if one has proper low pass established, the box could make noise after the filter, like panels vibrating, port huffin and puffin, harmonics are generated somewhere, and so on. All of which would help localize it.
I tried sub on side, and it was quite annoying, easily localizable. For some reason it works nicely behind of front listening spot, doesn't reveal itself.
100Hz tone is 3.4m long, while distance between ears about what 0.17m, roughly 20x less. This means pressure at both ears is nearly the same at any given moment / direction and I'd imagine it could be quite hard to hear direction, but let's not imagine there is studies that have tested localization and we should take those.
In practice, a sub with low pass filter could be quite localizable though, as you've noticed. Likely due to many reasons. One is too low order low pass filter: make sure your filter is acoustic and not electrical, unfiltered sub output is likely rising towards highs all the way to mids, which means that for example 2nd order electrical low pass filter would make acoustic output merely flatten or slightly dropping, acoustic output extends far beyond the electrical filter. Even if one has proper low pass established, the box could make noise after the filter, like panels vibrating, port huffin and puffin, harmonics are generated somewhere, and so on. All of which would help localize it.
I tried sub on side, and it was quite annoying, easily localizable. For some reason it works nicely behind of front listening spot, doesn't reveal itself.
Last edited:
It is very open question. As a scientist ( in the field i was educated: social/human behavior related) i'am interested in facts, the reason they happen and what phenomenon they imply. Overall the level of knowledge ( in the field they are tested) of People Under Test doesn't matter, how they react and why is. You can surely define some family of PUT and similarity in this different groups but in no way it'll define what is right or wrong, at most it'll put on light some process at works which is already great.
Yes people can be trained, i'am an example, as you are. But trained in what? I mean take a composer, an instrument player and a technician in audio. All professionals of course. Do you think they listen to same things? My experience tells me not.
In that they can only be treated as particular groups which should share some common attribute along a group but nothing more.
In that 'naive' people ( untrained average listener) have same potential weight in results, as a trained group have. Differences will occurs between both groups but none is more relevant than another.
Here lie the irony: how do you describe what a 'great listener is'? By defining such you already give your opinion which bias outcome you would have...
Studying human being is difficult and in most cases you'll face something similar to Schroedinger's paradox: by looking at something you influences outcome.
Ask Earl about this, i'm sure he will gives you very interesting answers including statistical treatments of info harvested during study, the different ways to gather those info ( by observation or questioning) the caveat they could imply,...