An interesting factoid, Did you know that some owls ears are verticly displaced so that they can localize the sound of prey in both the vertical and horizontal plane?
What a good question
1. Can a person with total hearing loss in one ear distinguish the direction of sounds?
and a good answer -
it is more about turning the head (around differens axis)
In other words -
a person stone deaf in one ear cannot discern a stereo image 'generated' (in the head) between two loudspeakers.
Yet such an individual can determine the difference in the 'lifelikeness' of stereo reproduction when compared to L+R in mono.
Anyone can stick a finger in one ear to test this,
whereupon they will hear either the L or the R loudspeaker or any degree of a single proportionate mix of both, but they cannot perceive any 'live' image due to learned cerebral decoding,
because when hearing both L+R loudspeakers together, they cannot determine which carries the greater output of any instrument or performer *without turning their head* to verify.
On the other hand, having a finger in one ear for listening is a much more positive way of determining reproduction anomalies and problems in one channel (especially LS system bass-mid-treble coherence weaknesses) due to an increased ability to perceive without the masking distraction of clutter from another channel and to some extent from room and path reflections,
though of course there cannot then be any determination of stereo imagery errors either.
Hi Ingvar,
I agree that 4 monopolar mics would be necessary for any direction in the plane of the microphones, but what about one monopolar plus a pair of crossed co-sited dipolar mics = 3 for the horizontal plane, or three dipolar for total altazimuth resolution ?
Cheers .............. Graham.
1. Can a person with total hearing loss in one ear distinguish the direction of sounds?
and a good answer -
it is more about turning the head (around differens axis)
In other words -
a person stone deaf in one ear cannot discern a stereo image 'generated' (in the head) between two loudspeakers.
Yet such an individual can determine the difference in the 'lifelikeness' of stereo reproduction when compared to L+R in mono.
Anyone can stick a finger in one ear to test this,
whereupon they will hear either the L or the R loudspeaker or any degree of a single proportionate mix of both, but they cannot perceive any 'live' image due to learned cerebral decoding,
because when hearing both L+R loudspeakers together, they cannot determine which carries the greater output of any instrument or performer *without turning their head* to verify.
On the other hand, having a finger in one ear for listening is a much more positive way of determining reproduction anomalies and problems in one channel (especially LS system bass-mid-treble coherence weaknesses) due to an increased ability to perceive without the masking distraction of clutter from another channel and to some extent from room and path reflections,
though of course there cannot then be any determination of stereo imagery errors either.
Hi Ingvar,
I agree that 4 monopolar mics would be necessary for any direction in the plane of the microphones, but what about one monopolar plus a pair of crossed co-sited dipolar mics = 3 for the horizontal plane, or three dipolar for total altazimuth resolution ?
Cheers .............. Graham.
I've pulled this out of another post I made in another thread:
Its a room correction processor but what's interesting is it claims to work in 3Dimensions and also uses cancellation techniques to partially eliminate first reflections. Scroll down to the bottom of the page linked above to see some pretty rendering of wave propagation throughout a room.
I also notice it comes with a 4x mic that can distinguish some level of direction:
Looks interesting.
Its a room correction processor but what's interesting is it claims to work in 3Dimensions and also uses cancellation techniques to partially eliminate first reflections. Scroll down to the bottom of the page linked above to see some pretty rendering of wave propagation throughout a room.
I also notice it comes with a 4x mic that can distinguish some level of direction:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Looks interesting.
tc-60guy said:
Displacing one ear vertically, does not add an extra dimension.
It only twists the plane of the vertical axis, around which the horizontal direction is determined.
But moving the head by rotating it round an axis going from beak to neck, to modulate the inter
aural height of the ears, will help determine vertical position.
As will it’s HAFRTF (Head And Feather Related Transfer Function). 🙂
Best regards, Ingvar
If you think of the same kind of owls as me their outer (feather)ears are assymetrical, which renders the ability of vertical localization based upon binaural comparison between the ears "frequency response" possible.tc-60guy said:
But surely the eardrum itself has only one-directional movement like a microphone diaphragm?
Doesn't this sort of imply that if a pair of microphones were given the HTRTF information and how to process it, they could also distinguish "up and down" etc.
What I guess, I'm getting at, is that it is the processor "behind" the eardrums that makes our hearing what it is, and not the receiving mechanism. ??
Doesn't this sort of imply that if a pair of microphones were given the HTRTF information and how to process it, they could also distinguish "up and down" etc.
What I guess, I'm getting at, is that it is the processor "behind" the eardrums that makes our hearing what it is, and not the receiving mechanism. ??
Patrik, I think you're right. Furthermore, the ruff of feathers around the face are bedded in muscles which allow the the ruff to be shaped like a dish further amplifing the sound
Hello Andy, The nature show was about owls and other raptors. The ear holes on the skull of the owl are verticaly displaced and one is pointed slightly up and the other down. As to how this is processed by the owls brain? Your guess is as good as mine!
Andy Graddon said:
Yes and no. For practical reasons, we can say that it is so, since any other acttion is lost info, due to the one-dimensional signal path the the energy enters when it passes the bones of the middle ear.
Yes, you're right.
It is a well known techniqe - dummy head stereo. 🙂
(And Yes - you must use head phones, if you want to them as they were intended.)
Actually, recordnings employing microphones that adds HTRTF to the recordning can be optimized for loudspeakers too, but it is much more difficult. It takes a lot of (well mayby not so much...) signal processing.
When I did it (in the late 70's) it was difficult because all processing had to be done in the analogue domain.
And similar effects can be accompished when doing multi track recordnings, by mixing with "HTRTF-modified" frequency responce. Thus, things can be panned not only to left and right but also up! It is important to remember not to do the HTRTF-modification before the tap to the reverb though (then it is persieved as a timbral change only, as anyone can understand).
Best regards, Ingvar
I found theese searching for HRTF:
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1193.pdf
I think picture on page 4 might tell us something about the small corrections that we can use from about 2 - 10 kHz, right or wrong??
http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/CIL_tutorial/3D_home.htm
About HRTF and some info on the pinna effect.
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1193.pdf
I think picture on page 4 might tell us something about the small corrections that we can use from about 2 - 10 kHz, right or wrong??
http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/CIL_tutorial/3D_home.htm
About HRTF and some info on the pinna effect.
IngOehman said:
Give me 1.5" reel to reel, and a real spring reverb unit any day !!!
produce some REAL music 😀
Hi IngOehman,
It is a pleasure to read your explanations and know about your approach to speaker design...I'm also glad that the mood here is now a comfortable one...one in better relation to speaker builders, which I previously considered the friendliest amongst DIYers...
While a novice in such matters and aiming to develop my own really full-range horn speakers, yours are very appealing, nevertheless . The most interesting aspect, to me anyway, is the Helmholtz resonator part of it. I've been searching and I think one can reverse-engineer your design to guess(timate) the internal aspect of it. Wright?
I can see from the photos that you use a "slot" type of mouth in your speakers. And now comes the real question:
Based in your vast experience, what are the advantages of the slot area type versus a common round bass reflex approach?
I suspect it has to do (I hope) with less turbulence and fake bass...
Maybe a narrower spectrum of frequencies are enhanced on a more predictable way?
Novice questions but on topic 😉
Cheers,
M
It is a pleasure to read your explanations and know about your approach to speaker design...I'm also glad that the mood here is now a comfortable one...one in better relation to speaker builders, which I previously considered the friendliest amongst DIYers...
While a novice in such matters and aiming to develop my own really full-range horn speakers, yours are very appealing, nevertheless . The most interesting aspect, to me anyway, is the Helmholtz resonator part of it. I've been searching and I think one can reverse-engineer your design to guess(timate) the internal aspect of it. Wright?
I can see from the photos that you use a "slot" type of mouth in your speakers. And now comes the real question:
Based in your vast experience, what are the advantages of the slot area type versus a common round bass reflex approach?
I suspect it has to do (I hope) with less turbulence and fake bass...
Maybe a narrower spectrum of frequencies are enhanced on a more predictable way?
Novice questions but on topic 😉
Cheers,
M
AJinFLA said:
To my surprise I found an old measurement I´ve done myself recently posted by IngOhman on the site where he does most of his marketing.
Strangely it has been manipulated or "corrected", as he claims, for a imaginary microphone-curve that suits his taste better by a hand-drawn line..🙂
The "corrections" drawn on the curves representing a compared speaker are different done!
However, regardless of how the individual curves in the measurement should be interpreted I think they gives interesting information, compared to each other, about dispersion characteristics.
The upper set of curves regards speaker is Ino pip which i think is comparable to Guru qm10, and the lower set shows my own speakers with ATC/Stage Accompany drivers.
I think the curves shows 0, 15 and 45 degrees angle.
Attachments
You are wrong about close to everything there Patrik. 
Why do you behave like this?
The only thing I saw that was correct is that YOU did the measurement (with a "toy microphone"), and I stated that in the posting, as you know. Neither did I make any secret of the fact that I have added the correction curves (by hand), nor have I erased your original flawed measurements. Everything is there to view for any one interested.
And as you know (but continues lying about) I do not do any marketing what so ever.
If I start some thread on an internet forum, it is close to never about Ino (nor Guru or Carlsson) speakers. And before internet, I was writing articles for the same reason, for MANY years, and I can assure you - most subscribers of Music & Audio Technology did not even, after the first 6 years of writing from me, know that I vas making loudspeakers! Nor did they know that there was a brand called Ino!
I've never used any magazines nor internet sites for marketing, simply because it has not been in my interest* and there has certainly not been any need for it! It is a quarter of a years waiting list to even come and listen to Ino speakers. What good would marketing do me? I have no ambition to expand what so ever.
On the contrary - I'd love to have fewer people trying to reach me to buy speakers! 😉
(Why else would I be writing on a diy-forum, where there is close to a guarantee that no one will buy any speakers? I write here only because I got the impression that there were people here asking questions on the Guru speakers, and it is my general experience, that people at diy-foras are intelligent and knowledgably, and therefore are worth discussing with, since it is those persons understanding the basics about audio, that has the potential to help making the world of reproduced sound better.)
On the swedish forum Faktiskt.se, I have been writing close to 12 000 postings, and I it is not more than maximum a few percent where I´ve even mentioned my speakers! Close to all those times I’ve done so, it is because someone has asked questions about them, or has done what you do so often - brought them up to tell lies about them, or just generally tried to imply things in a very tendentious way.
Do you call ¨me defending myself from your vicious attacks¨ marketing??? That’s low, even from you.
The posting you are talking about from Faktiskt.se, was again in a thread I did not start. I only responded to questions asked about measurement on my speakers. Most of the curves did I post, was measurements made by other people.
Regarding the compensation I’ve suggested for your measurements, it is based on the compensation that was derived from the info on which microphones YOU said you used, and the analyses YOU did on them! i.e. on the clarifications that YOU were involved measuring! (Svante helped you figure out the errors of your measurements, remember?).
For any one speaking Swedish, this is the thread that the curve Patrik now (dishonesty) act like he has newer seen before 🙄 was first published:
http://www.faktiskt.se/modules.php?...ays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=stage&start=480
Best regards, Ingvar
- - - - -
*I've only wanted to try to educate people (any one interested) so that the general quality of reproducing sound would go up, and yes that has been a 100% egoistic thing from my behalf! But is has absolutely NOTHING to do with marketing. I just want to do what I can to help recordings and equipment all over the world to improve.
Why do you behave like this?
The only thing I saw that was correct is that YOU did the measurement (with a "toy microphone"), and I stated that in the posting, as you know. Neither did I make any secret of the fact that I have added the correction curves (by hand), nor have I erased your original flawed measurements. Everything is there to view for any one interested.
And as you know (but continues lying about) I do not do any marketing what so ever.
If I start some thread on an internet forum, it is close to never about Ino (nor Guru or Carlsson) speakers. And before internet, I was writing articles for the same reason, for MANY years, and I can assure you - most subscribers of Music & Audio Technology did not even, after the first 6 years of writing from me, know that I vas making loudspeakers! Nor did they know that there was a brand called Ino!
I've never used any magazines nor internet sites for marketing, simply because it has not been in my interest* and there has certainly not been any need for it! It is a quarter of a years waiting list to even come and listen to Ino speakers. What good would marketing do me? I have no ambition to expand what so ever.
On the contrary - I'd love to have fewer people trying to reach me to buy speakers! 😉
(Why else would I be writing on a diy-forum, where there is close to a guarantee that no one will buy any speakers? I write here only because I got the impression that there were people here asking questions on the Guru speakers, and it is my general experience, that people at diy-foras are intelligent and knowledgably, and therefore are worth discussing with, since it is those persons understanding the basics about audio, that has the potential to help making the world of reproduced sound better.)
On the swedish forum Faktiskt.se, I have been writing close to 12 000 postings, and I it is not more than maximum a few percent where I´ve even mentioned my speakers! Close to all those times I’ve done so, it is because someone has asked questions about them, or has done what you do so often - brought them up to tell lies about them, or just generally tried to imply things in a very tendentious way.
Do you call ¨me defending myself from your vicious attacks¨ marketing??? That’s low, even from you.
The posting you are talking about from Faktiskt.se, was again in a thread I did not start. I only responded to questions asked about measurement on my speakers. Most of the curves did I post, was measurements made by other people.
Regarding the compensation I’ve suggested for your measurements, it is based on the compensation that was derived from the info on which microphones YOU said you used, and the analyses YOU did on them! i.e. on the clarifications that YOU were involved measuring! (Svante helped you figure out the errors of your measurements, remember?).
For any one speaking Swedish, this is the thread that the curve Patrik now (dishonesty) act like he has newer seen before 🙄 was first published:
http://www.faktiskt.se/modules.php?...ays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=stage&start=480
Best regards, Ingvar
- - - - -
*I've only wanted to try to educate people (any one interested) so that the general quality of reproducing sound would go up, and yes that has been a 100% egoistic thing from my behalf! But is has absolutely NOTHING to do with marketing. I just want to do what I can to help recordings and equipment all over the world to improve.
PS. The first comment (the very first two sentences!) that Patrik Finn wrote 1.5 years ago when I first published
of the above graphs (that he now acts surprised about and pretend that he has not seen before) was:
Or in English:
(I've added an explaining parenthesis inside the quote, just so that no one has any questions on whos loudspeakers
he concluded was being wrong - his own.)
Best regards, Ingvar
of the above graphs (that he now acts surprised about and pretend that he has not seen before) was:
Or in English:
(I've added an explaining parenthesis inside the quote, just so that no one has any questions on whos loudspeakers
he concluded was being wrong - his own.)
Best regards, Ingvar
It´s possible we have different views on what´s marketing🙂.
I made measurements with Behringer, G.R.A.S, Buel & Kjaer and Larson&Davis microphones with similar results. The common factor was that they were made with SIA SMAART which utilises two channel FFT.
It is more likely that the measurements with Smaart were influenced by the environment in which they took place than that all these microphones should have a common fault.
The frequency reponse of the Stage Accompany driver in not known to have the characteristic given by the home-made "corrrections" made in the "fixed" graph.
Parts of the difference between the two compared speakers in this measurements could depend upon different dependance of the "working envoronment".
My assumptions about crossover design in my speakers were hypotetical and due to a open discussion about the causes of these measurement results and has no relevance for this discussion .
My intention is not to compete about who´s speakers is best.
As i wrote in the previous post, the most interesting information about the Guru/Ino speaker(which is the topic of this thread) that could be extracted from the graph is that of its dispersion characteristics. Possible measurement faults should not vary between measurements for different angles and only on one of the speakers. The lower set of curves is furthermore consistent with other measurments regarding the ATC SM75-150S dome mid. For example those posted on ths site by ShinOBIWAN.
The results from this measurement MIGHT explain why rooms where these Guru/Ino speakers is used is recommended extensive damping.
I made measurements with Behringer, G.R.A.S, Buel & Kjaer and Larson&Davis microphones with similar results. The common factor was that they were made with SIA SMAART which utilises two channel FFT.
It is more likely that the measurements with Smaart were influenced by the environment in which they took place than that all these microphones should have a common fault.
The frequency reponse of the Stage Accompany driver in not known to have the characteristic given by the home-made "corrrections" made in the "fixed" graph.
Parts of the difference between the two compared speakers in this measurements could depend upon different dependance of the "working envoronment".
My assumptions about crossover design in my speakers were hypotetical and due to a open discussion about the causes of these measurement results and has no relevance for this discussion .
My intention is not to compete about who´s speakers is best.
As i wrote in the previous post, the most interesting information about the Guru/Ino speaker(which is the topic of this thread) that could be extracted from the graph is that of its dispersion characteristics. Possible measurement faults should not vary between measurements for different angles and only on one of the speakers. The lower set of curves is furthermore consistent with other measurments regarding the ATC SM75-150S dome mid. For example those posted on ths site by ShinOBIWAN.
The results from this measurement MIGHT explain why rooms where these Guru/Ino speakers is used is recommended extensive damping.
patrikf said:
Memory is a strange thing indeed. Fortunately, there are forum logs. I checked out the postings on the Swedish site and apparently you quoted and commented the image that you state surprised you (including the edits in white by IngOehman) on Aug 21, 2006, i.e. 18 months ago. The edits by IngOehman were done to show how the known errors of the microphones you used would affect the curves compared to a calibrated microphone.
IngOehman's re-posting of this picture was recently made in a new thread (on the same Swedish site) to show different measurements of his Ino range made under different circumstance by different people. It was illuminating to see how different things can look under different circumstances (anechoic vs. in situ, close vs. listening positioning, "dead" vs. "live" room, different smoothing and gating).
/Kranis
Kranis, there could be other reasons for being surprised than loss of memory 😉
Could you please explain these "known errors" in some detail?
As I wrote in my post above yours the conclusion that the measurement should be affected by the same imaginary "known error" on four different types of microphones is highly unlikely.
Instead of taking defence position by repeatedly paying attention to the shortcomings of the measurement that i already have pointed out, wouldn´t it be more fruitful to discuss what information COULD be extracted?
Or rationally discuss the measurements validity upon the dispersion patterns?
Could you please explain these "known errors" in some detail?
As I wrote in my post above yours the conclusion that the measurement should be affected by the same imaginary "known error" on four different types of microphones is highly unlikely.
Instead of taking defence position by repeatedly paying attention to the shortcomings of the measurement that i already have pointed out, wouldn´t it be more fruitful to discuss what information COULD be extracted?
Or rationally discuss the measurements validity upon the dispersion patterns?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.