Hadn't really thought about this ...
Speed of sound in air at sea level 340m/s
A sound say 10 metres away and central. Ears 0.15m apart.
Time to ears = same.
Move the sound source 1 m laterally (easily detectable, yes?)
Now one ear is approx 1 cm closer to the sound source than the other.
= a relative time delay of 0.00000294 seconds.
Presumably why a transient doesn't noticeably double when it is not central to the audio field.
Now consider that your head generally moves, and your brain effortlessly compensates for this without breaking your 3-d image of relative positions of sounds.
Now bury a tiny sound in a much larger and complex sound. You can still easily detect the tiny sound, and locate it in space as definitely as if the large complex sound isn't there.
And do the same in a reverberant space. It still works (perhaps getting a little trickier).
And remembering that every movement will slightly alter the frequencies of all sounds being heard (doppler effect) - rotating the head will lower frequencies to 1 ear while raising them to the other ear.
Cool! (If correct)
And the objectivists apparently have software which can do this sort of stuff, because everything we hear can be better measured by microphones.
😀 😀
Speed of sound in air at sea level 340m/s
A sound say 10 metres away and central. Ears 0.15m apart.
Time to ears = same.
Move the sound source 1 m laterally (easily detectable, yes?)
Now one ear is approx 1 cm closer to the sound source than the other.
= a relative time delay of 0.00000294 seconds.
Presumably why a transient doesn't noticeably double when it is not central to the audio field.
Now consider that your head generally moves, and your brain effortlessly compensates for this without breaking your 3-d image of relative positions of sounds.
Now bury a tiny sound in a much larger and complex sound. You can still easily detect the tiny sound, and locate it in space as definitely as if the large complex sound isn't there.
And do the same in a reverberant space. It still works (perhaps getting a little trickier).
And remembering that every movement will slightly alter the frequencies of all sounds being heard (doppler effect) - rotating the head will lower frequencies to 1 ear while raising them to the other ear.
Cool! (If correct)
And the objectivists apparently have software which can do this sort of stuff, because everything we hear can be better measured by microphones.
😀 😀
It is pretty amazing, though I think we're veering off into an area most objectivists haven't made any specific measurement claims about and somebody's just objectivist bashing ;-)
What I find really amazing is that let's say I can hear tones to about 14kHz (hey, I'm over 50, whadaya want). That's a period of 0.00007 seconds. Yet apparently I can resolve time differences related to localization a factor of 24 times better than that, since I don't have any trouble localizing things. How dat pea brain do dat?
What I find really amazing is that let's say I can hear tones to about 14kHz (hey, I'm over 50, whadaya want). That's a period of 0.00007 seconds. Yet apparently I can resolve time differences related to localization a factor of 24 times better than that, since I don't have any trouble localizing things. How dat pea brain do dat?
fredex said:
OK, more seriously now. 😀
We must not underestimate the power of the mind, I'm quite sure that our way of thinking has an influence on our health. Some people think themselves sick and "sugar" should be able to fix that.
All the argument around hifi audibility vs. measurements is compromised by the fact that measurements are done with signals very unlike those we listen to. You don't test an airplane underwater, unless you're making an airplanesubmarine.😎
In fact small movements of the head raise localization accuracy to a great degree compared to experiments with fixed head positions.
Regarding reverberation it depends on the content if localization improves.
The close realtionship in most systems between bandwidth and spectral resolution doesn´t seem to exist in our ears. Contrary to the opinion expressed by tnargs, that is one of the points why in this field a lot of people do think the current modelling of our hearing ability needs some revision.
Jont Allen did a lot of work in this area and maintaines a website devoted to the auditiory system:
www.auditorymodels.org
Another message about some problems is this (terrible to read at least to me, but really interesting):
http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M30.html
Alan Hope said:
I've quoted the names of four interconnect cables a while ago, and could identify them 100%. I've done tests with two digital interconnects of the same company, also 100%. Speakercables were their top three cables, also 100%.
Now see what you have done, I was called the "golden eared god" already, what now? 😀
BTW my ears are all but perfect but I'm doing comparative tests for many years now. It was very difficult when I started (trying to remember the sounds), it get much easier with time.
André
Re: Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
No. I can't prove a negative.
"Small" differences? How small? Minuscule perhaps? At or below DBT thresholds? Hmmm, didn't I mention this before? Tiny spatial differences...in soundstages of which we have no absolute reference? Any "better" than what can be had at Rat Shack? Or just "different"?
This person was clearly not an audiophile. We know this because:
1) He did not insist that even though there is no scientific (magnetic/biology) reason you are aware of for a magnetic bracelet to work, doesn't mean that science won't discover "it" in the future and that we have finite knowledge and how science has been wrong before...then maybe throw in some obscure quote about Lord Kelvin dissing x rays and so forth..
2) the bracelet has an effect on his immune system and not your system, because his system is "more revealing" to such effects and plus your cheap wristwatch bracelet is "Mid-Hi" in quality, etc. etc.
Your immune system is lacking and inferior, so please don't be jealous and mocking of his.
3) In the intervening year he hadn't "tweaked" and "upgraded" the bracelet several times, to now wearing the $10k pure 100% silver quantum tunneling model for "stunning improvements" even his next door neighbors wife pulling into the driveway has noticed.
Not to mention that he now has them magnetic thingamagigs on his car fuel lines....
Where did is say that or indicate that was my position? I mentioned (at or below) thresholds and also invited the psychogenic anti-DBTers to inform me of a scientifically valid alternative. If there is a better way, lemme know.
cheers,
AJ
Andy Graddon said:
No. I can't prove a negative.
"Small" differences? How small? Minuscule perhaps? At or below DBT thresholds? Hmmm, didn't I mention this before? Tiny spatial differences...in soundstages of which we have no absolute reference? Any "better" than what can be had at Rat Shack? Or just "different"?
jneutron said:
This person was clearly not an audiophile. We know this because:
1) He did not insist that even though there is no scientific (magnetic/biology) reason you are aware of for a magnetic bracelet to work, doesn't mean that science won't discover "it" in the future and that we have finite knowledge and how science has been wrong before...then maybe throw in some obscure quote about Lord Kelvin dissing x rays and so forth..
2) the bracelet has an effect on his immune system and not your system, because his system is "more revealing" to such effects and plus your cheap wristwatch bracelet is "Mid-Hi" in quality, etc. etc.
Your immune system is lacking and inferior, so please don't be jealous and mocking of his.
3) In the intervening year he hadn't "tweaked" and "upgraded" the bracelet several times, to now wearing the $10k pure 100% silver quantum tunneling model for "stunning improvements" even his next door neighbors wife pulling into the driveway has noticed.
Not to mention that he now has them magnetic thingamagigs on his car fuel lines....
jneutron said:
Where did is say that or indicate that was my position? I mentioned (at or below) thresholds and also invited the psychogenic anti-DBTers to inform me of a scientifically valid alternative. If there is a better way, lemme know.cheers,
AJ
Alan Hope said:
While doppler will be there to a degree, we don't rotate the head fast enough to shift the frequency much..and still be alive
The software will have it's limitations w/r to localization issues.
Your analysis covers absolute ITD by geometry, this analysis is consistent with "head in the vice" testing. In reality, we move our heads and yet retain imagery. I propose the utilization of a differential, or relative, localization.
Specifically, at some distance (say 10 feet), what side to side resolution can one expect.. Hold two bells a foot apart, and have a blindfolded listener determine ONLY which bell is on the right, which is on the left.
Statistically, there will be a spacing where the accuracy of choice will be 50%, 60%, 90%, 99% etc..
Once the 90% (as an example) point has been established, determine the ITD and IID parameters geometrically...Use a point source model for IID, as line and planar sources will give different numbers..
Then, test systems for that rigidity in response.
Conrad Hoffman said:
jneutron said:
While doppler will be there to a degree, we don't rotate the head fast enough to shift the frequency much..and still be alive
The software will have it's limitations w/r to localization issues.
Your analysis covers absolute ITD by geometry, this analysis is consistent with "head in the vice" testing. In reality, we move our heads and yet retain imagery. I propose the utilization of a differential, or relative, localization.
Specifically, at some distance (say 10 feet), what side to side resolution can one expect.. Hold two bells a foot apart, and have a blindfolded listener determine ONLY which bell is on the right, which is on the left.
Statistically, there will be a spacing where the accuracy of choice will be 50%, 60%, 90%, 99% etc..
Once the 90% (as an example) point has been established, determine the ITD and IID parameters geometrically...Use a point source model for IID, as line and planar sources will give different numbers..
Then, test systems for that rigidity in response.
I was also amazed to understand the disparity. 1 uSec is an inverted bandwidth of almost a Mhz...yet I hear only to 15-16k.
The concept is all well and good..what I find "troubling" is the fact that I've found no other individual who questions the fact that the source material being used to test human perceptions is one not found naturally occuring in nature.
Cheers, John
Surely a good amp reproduces faithfully what is on the CD ?
If we are not happy with that all we have to do is fiddle with the tone controls or equalizer ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
Hee hee...I know where those came from....😀
You gotta read more closely there AJ..I said you are repeating the consensus of others, I did not indicate that you held that position..
gotcha...😉
Cheers, John
AJinFLA said:
Hee hee...I know where those came from....😀
AJinFLA said:......
You gotta read more closely there AJ..I said you are repeating the consensus of others, I did not indicate that you held that position..
gotcha...😉
Cheers, John
Conrad Hoffman said:
When I did listening tests with carefully prepared test signals I found it most amazing to see how bad volunteers perform in the simplest listening tests, especially when music or "real life" signals are used as test signal.
With that experience in mind I find it amusing to see the great effort of audiophiles, "believers" or "subjectivists" on this forum trying to prove the superiority of hearing over measurements with complex examples.
Oh yes, it will be very difficult to measure or calculate every example audiophiles can think of, on the other hand it is very, very easy to prepare test signals which make audiophiles stumble in a test.
A Question Then....
Hello tnargs!
You stated that it is also a complete misrepresentation to say "objectivists" all think it is all done with measurements. All ---{objectivists}---who I have met believe in listening tests too, but they differ from "subjectivists" in that they understand the need for a controlled auditioning environment.
If that's true and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, then let me ask you this. Suppose you had a solid state, 100W/ch, integrated amp that measured well, was properly-designed and functioning properly. Your using it with a CD Player that's compatable with that amp which also measured well, was properly-designed and functioning properly. These are attached via regular Radio Shack ICs and speakerwire that once again have measured well and are properly-designed and functioning properly to a pair of Bose 901 speakers that like everything above has measured well and are properly-designed and functioning properly.
It all sounds good to you, very good in fact! Then one day a friend visits talking about this absolutely incredible sounding new solid state, 100W/ch, integrated amp he's just bought! It's so incredibly good sounding that he's brought it to your house for you to hear. Being the good objectivist that you are, you first verify that this amp measures well ---{fact is it measures almost the same as your amp & any differences are insignificant and would be below the threshold of hearing}--- for all intents and purposes, just like your amp, this amp is properly-designed, functioning properly and compatable with your other equipment.
So you exchange it for your amp in your system fully expecting to hear absolutely no differences, but amazing you do hear differences! Without going into a lot of terms let's us just say it sounds a lot more like what you ---{and your friend apparently}--- believe what live, unamplified music sounds like. You're perplexed by this but, you tell your friend it sounds very good and send him on his way asking if you can borrow his amp overnight.
When your friend leaves you re-insert your amp into the system only now it's just doesn't sound quite right. So you start by measuring everything once again. Much to your surprise everything checks as being ok! Still compared to the other amp it doesn't sound quite right. So one by one you replace your amp, CDP, speakers, ICs and speakerwire with the exact same model just in case they're somehow not functioning properly but, the sound doesn't change. Every new piece measures like the old piece did and they all measure well, are obviously properly-designed and are functioning properly.
Just for kicks you measure your friends amp again and lo and behold it also measures the same as before and it's obviously properly-designed and is functioning properly. Yet it also always sounds better to you in that it always replicates closer to what your subjective opinion of what live, unamplified music sounds like.
My question for you is at this point would you trust your ears? Or would you start to believe you're fooling yourself, hearing ghosts, under hypnotic suggestion or possible even start believing the test equipment was suspect? What if the test equipment checks out as ok? Would you trust your ears then?
Hello tnargs!
You stated that it is also a complete misrepresentation to say "objectivists" all think it is all done with measurements. All ---{objectivists}---who I have met believe in listening tests too, but they differ from "subjectivists" in that they understand the need for a controlled auditioning environment.
If that's true and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, then let me ask you this. Suppose you had a solid state, 100W/ch, integrated amp that measured well, was properly-designed and functioning properly. Your using it with a CD Player that's compatable with that amp which also measured well, was properly-designed and functioning properly. These are attached via regular Radio Shack ICs and speakerwire that once again have measured well and are properly-designed and functioning properly to a pair of Bose 901 speakers that like everything above has measured well and are properly-designed and functioning properly.
It all sounds good to you, very good in fact! Then one day a friend visits talking about this absolutely incredible sounding new solid state, 100W/ch, integrated amp he's just bought! It's so incredibly good sounding that he's brought it to your house for you to hear. Being the good objectivist that you are, you first verify that this amp measures well ---{fact is it measures almost the same as your amp & any differences are insignificant and would be below the threshold of hearing}--- for all intents and purposes, just like your amp, this amp is properly-designed, functioning properly and compatable with your other equipment.
So you exchange it for your amp in your system fully expecting to hear absolutely no differences, but amazing you do hear differences! Without going into a lot of terms let's us just say it sounds a lot more like what you ---{and your friend apparently}--- believe what live, unamplified music sounds like. You're perplexed by this but, you tell your friend it sounds very good and send him on his way asking if you can borrow his amp overnight.
When your friend leaves you re-insert your amp into the system only now it's just doesn't sound quite right. So you start by measuring everything once again. Much to your surprise everything checks as being ok! Still compared to the other amp it doesn't sound quite right. So one by one you replace your amp, CDP, speakers, ICs and speakerwire with the exact same model just in case they're somehow not functioning properly but, the sound doesn't change. Every new piece measures like the old piece did and they all measure well, are obviously properly-designed and are functioning properly.
Just for kicks you measure your friends amp again and lo and behold it also measures the same as before and it's obviously properly-designed and is functioning properly. Yet it also always sounds better to you in that it always replicates closer to what your subjective opinion of what live, unamplified music sounds like.
My question for you is at this point would you trust your ears? Or would you start to believe you're fooling yourself, hearing ghosts, under hypnotic suggestion or possible even start believing the test equipment was suspect? What if the test equipment checks out as ok? Would you trust your ears then?
nigelwright7557 said:
Hmm..why limit the discussion to the amp.
How accurately will a cd reproduce interchannel timing? If we are talking about 1 or 2, even 5 uSec interchannel timing, how good will 22 uSec sample timing fare?
I have a sound card that multiplexes I/O...there is a built in 11 uSec interchannel delay...as there is only one ADC and one DAC. I used to think that was sufficient to have sufficient bandwidth, but now find that it is not possible to center a headphone produced image correctly with the balance control...(Note: headphones is lateralization, speakers are localization).
A direct answer...an amp SHOULD faithfully reproduce it. The problem is, what is faithful? How would you recommend measuring a 900 hz interchannel delay at the 1 uSec level with confounding and uncorrelated information on both channels?
When measuring it, which quadrant of amplifier operation would you recommend?? 1 and 3, pure resistive? 2 and 4, reactive?
Or just toss a resistor on the out, run an FFT of sufficient length, and disregard any phase modulation at the 1uSec level and any amplitude modulation at the .1dB level..
Quite a few amplifier designers are clueless when it comes to amplifier layout and inductive coupling....even though they may excel in the circuitry aspects.
nigelwright7557 said:
While I use both, I understand the limitations of them w/r to fixing either amplitude or phase, not both independently.
Cheers, John
ravon said:
Umm, ravon..are you considering me either an audiophile, a believer, or a subjectivist???
If so, that would certainly be a first for me..
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
I have a question which I posted before but you didn't answer it. Here it is again:
What kind of sounds would that be? Could you provide some examples?
thetubeguy1954 said:
I have a question which I posted before but you didn't answer it. Here it is again:
What kind of sounds would that be? Could you provide some examples?
A Possible Reason
Hello My Friend!
I heard that the reason that magnets work on ailments is because the earths magnetic field strength has weakened 10% in the last 150 years. So supposedly wearing the magnets helps restore the effect on the human body of the weakin magnetic field. Don't know if that makes any reasonable scientific sense to anyone but I know that's the reasoning behind wearing magnets.
Here's a couple of links about some of that info:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
You also might be surprised to know that Doctors at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Tx., conducted a double-blind study of 50 patients with postpolio syndrome who reported muscular or arthritic-like pain. The study reported that 76% of the group with a "real" magnet showed improvement compared with 19% of the group with a "sham" (inactive) magnet. This study was published in Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 78, November 1997.
Michael I. Weintraub, MD, FACP, conducted a pilot study of diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy. This was published in the American Journal of Pain Management, Volume 8 No. 1 January 1998. Using magnetic foot insoles, this pilot study revealed that 75% (6 of 8) subjects experienced a reduction or reversal of symptoms. Dr. Weintraub is currently conducting a similar, nation-wide study using a double-blind protocol. The results are expected to be published by fall of 2001. Be sure to watch for this! (We believe, based on the anecdotal evidence we have seen, that the results will be very favorable!)
Between February and December 1996, 38 subjects with wrist pain were part of a study conducted by Dr. Michael McLean, Robert R. Holcomb, and others supported by the Sara Lee Corporation in collaboration with the Holcomb Medical Research Institute and Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 29 of these subjects were evaluable. This team found that pain decreased an average of 53%, an 18/29 (62%) improved during the blinded phase of the test.
Maybe this is one more area that we just don't exactly or percisely why it works but, it does? Maybe not.
jneutron said:
Hello My Friend!
I heard that the reason that magnets work on ailments is because the earths magnetic field strength has weakened 10% in the last 150 years. So supposedly wearing the magnets helps restore the effect on the human body of the weakin magnetic field. Don't know if that makes any reasonable scientific sense to anyone but I know that's the reasoning behind wearing magnets.
Here's a couple of links about some of that info:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
You also might be surprised to know that Doctors at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Tx., conducted a double-blind study of 50 patients with postpolio syndrome who reported muscular or arthritic-like pain. The study reported that 76% of the group with a "real" magnet showed improvement compared with 19% of the group with a "sham" (inactive) magnet. This study was published in Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 78, November 1997.
Michael I. Weintraub, MD, FACP, conducted a pilot study of diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy. This was published in the American Journal of Pain Management, Volume 8 No. 1 January 1998. Using magnetic foot insoles, this pilot study revealed that 75% (6 of 8) subjects experienced a reduction or reversal of symptoms. Dr. Weintraub is currently conducting a similar, nation-wide study using a double-blind protocol. The results are expected to be published by fall of 2001. Be sure to watch for this! (We believe, based on the anecdotal evidence we have seen, that the results will be very favorable!)
Between February and December 1996, 38 subjects with wrist pain were part of a study conducted by Dr. Michael McLean, Robert R. Holcomb, and others supported by the Sara Lee Corporation in collaboration with the Holcomb Medical Research Institute and Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 29 of these subjects were evaluable. This team found that pain decreased an average of 53%, an 18/29 (62%) improved during the blinded phase of the test.
Maybe this is one more area that we just don't exactly or percisely why it works but, it does? Maybe not.
Re: A Possible Reason
The earth's magnetic field varies from .3 gauss to about .6 gauss around the planet, so 10% is probably not a big hill o beans. ( Wiki has it at 5%). I'm not sure what a several gauss localized field would have to do with whole body dose..
When we measure magnetic widgits, we certainly do have to account for the .5 gauss field here, it upsets our measurement accuracy for fields under 5 tesla.
Many studies do indeed end up rather flawed, but are not pulled..It's difficult for us laymen (medically speaking) to distinguish good results from flawed ones.
I honestly believe the magnetic bracelet stuff is more along the lines of "don't work", but if somebody swears by them, then keep on truckin by all means..
If reliance on them was in liu of actual medical treatment, then they can do much damage..
Cheers, John
thetubeguy1954 said:
The earth's magnetic field varies from .3 gauss to about .6 gauss around the planet, so 10% is probably not a big hill o beans. ( Wiki has it at 5%). I'm not sure what a several gauss localized field would have to do with whole body dose..
When we measure magnetic widgits, we certainly do have to account for the .5 gauss field here, it upsets our measurement accuracy for fields under 5 tesla.
thetubeguy1954 said:
Many studies do indeed end up rather flawed, but are not pulled..It's difficult for us laymen (medically speaking) to distinguish good results from flawed ones.
I honestly believe the magnetic bracelet stuff is more along the lines of "don't work", but if somebody swears by them, then keep on truckin by all means..
If reliance on them was in liu of actual medical treatment, then they can do much damage..
Cheers, John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.