nunayafb said:
The correlation between a human ear and a microphone is that there is a tympanic membrane that converts pressure fluctuations into a signal.
Merely pointing out that the pinna is not symmetrical does nothing to explain your position in any appreciable detail on how this translates (directly) to making sound appear higher in a 2 channel recording.
nunayafb said:
No, actually I explain things I'm trying to explain, in detail. Why don't you counter my explanations with your own illustrations, than attack them.
Your ad hominem attacks are wasted on me.... I haven't once tried to "characterize" you. I haven't made this personal.
nunayafb said:
Ok, so in this statement, this is what I get....
1- I disregard how the brain localizes...
2- I repeat obvious things...
3- I lack the effort to listen
4- I can't think outside my field of expertise
nunayafb said:
Again, you fail to illustrate how this will end up in ANY perceived height change.
What you are talking about is simply altering proximity . The soundstage will only become more(or less) diffuse, and the overall FR will change. This will not correlate into anything more than more or less "reverberant" with some FR changes (in both the direct and diffused sounds).
And without the benfit of ever being in "the" room the recording actually tool place, how would know what something high up in the air in "that" room, sounded like?
You are obviously merely postulating. If you had any practical experience with recording, you would know that none of what you are suggesting will give you any "height" differential.
I have recorded drums with stereo mics 12' in the air, with the diaphrams pointed forward (not down at the kit), by your theory, we should hear the drums 12' below the speaker center axis.
nunayafb said:
I asked you very clearly to explain in detail . You did not explain in detail. You don't have an explanation, just your own theory.
nunayafb said:
You didn't explain that either....just told me about an experience you had, with no explanation as to how this would work.
nunayafb said:
I'm not soliciting your opinion on "me". Stop with the "You act like this" "you keep talking about" "you ignore that" " you don't understand..."
The topic isn't "me", the topic is imaging height in 2 channel audio.
Again, I invite you to give me details of how this can exist with fixed height L/R speakers. You can get as technical as you wish.
I sincerely would love to be able to do this if it is at all possible.
Cheers
nunayafb said:
Except that what's primarily responsible for our ability to localize vertically is our outer ear, or pinna. As the sound source changes vertically with respect to our ears, the various resonances of the pinna change the sound before it enters the ear canal and we perceive a change in vertical localization.
This will not occur by simply changing the height of the source relative to the microphones.
se
Of course, as well as the acoustic transfer functions resulting from the shape of the head and torso. The total change is highly specific to each individual. It's why binaural recordings work better on some than others. However Daygloworange now has me wondering if some people naturally can't perceive height 'in the wild'.
Blind Low-high Test
Hey ho ... blinded test
Got my daughter (who has good hearing) to shut her eyes. I snapped my fingers in front of her either level with her face, or 3 feet higher. She claimed to be able to hear the difference - sighted.
Blinded, she could not. Got it right 50% of the time (3 of 6). And unsure each time! Before you ask this was not performed in a rigorous manner. 😉
So - I'm a bit dubious about how useful these pinna resonances actually are.
Hey ho ... blinded test
Got my daughter (who has good hearing) to shut her eyes. I snapped my fingers in front of her either level with her face, or 3 feet higher. She claimed to be able to hear the difference - sighted.
Blinded, she could not. Got it right 50% of the time (3 of 6). And unsure each time! Before you ask this was not performed in a rigorous manner. 😉
So - I'm a bit dubious about how useful these pinna resonances actually are.
You chose not to hear the explanation, so fine you use your 20 years of recording experience to explain how people hear this phenomenon
Re: Re: Blind Low-high Test
Not right overhead - couldn't tell the difference between a sound from straight ahead, and from a 45° angle to the vertical.
Just repeated it with direct overhead. Vertically above head / level. Two feet distance for both.
100% correct for 12 finger snaps - and certain each time. Maybe there is something in this after all. My finger snaps vary quite a bit in timbre and volume. This did not faze her at all. This suggests that a binaural recording WOULD work for sounds directly overhead, and pretty convincingly.
This would support the Wikipedia article "Binaural recordings can very convincingly reproduce location of sound behind, ahead, above, or wherever else the sound actually came from during recording."
rdf said:
Not right overhead - couldn't tell the difference between a sound from straight ahead, and from a 45° angle to the vertical.
Just repeated it with direct overhead. Vertically above head / level. Two feet distance for both.
100% correct for 12 finger snaps - and certain each time. Maybe there is something in this after all. My finger snaps vary quite a bit in timbre and volume. This did not faze her at all. This suggests that a binaural recording WOULD work for sounds directly overhead, and pretty convincingly.
This would support the Wikipedia article "Binaural recordings can very convincingly reproduce location of sound behind, ahead, above, or wherever else the sound actually came from during recording."
A different sound source as well, like tapping two chopsticks together. (What, not everyone keeps a drawer?) Frankly, I'm taken aback we're having this discussion at all. Instinctive binaural auditory localization in three dimensions is bedrock. Do you think predators consider approaching from any other than horizontal plane not cricket? Mammals have two ears, we're not special in that regard.
Re: Blind Low-high Test
When I cited everyday occurences that back up your conclusion (office phones and home theatre voices), I was told I'm deaf, one-eared, and to go away and read the research.
So, thanks. And I hope you get better treatment.
Alan Hope said:
When I cited everyday occurences that back up your conclusion (office phones and home theatre voices), I was told I'm deaf, one-eared, and to go away and read the research.
So, thanks. And I hope you get better treatment.
fredex said:
You cause no pain. As I said, the distinction (verbage) is fuzzy.
Audibility tests are indeed to find changes in the sound which are audible to humans.
There will be many changes which are not audible to us.
fredex said:
We can use instrumentation, but there is not necessarily a distinct line in the sand past which we can claim audibility when it comes to localization.
If the adaptability of our hearing can be considered and controlled for, then using humans is the best for audibility.
fredex said:
There is no need. Using a speaker cable with a characteristic impedance of 8 ohms vs one of 100 ohms can be trivially shown via instrumentation and through analytical equations, to have significant effects on the delivery of power to the load. But those instruments and equations cannot necessarily determine audibility of localization changes, as a criteria is not established.
fredex said:
I remain open to the possibility, as the evidence presented to date used a test system (humans) which adapts to the change in stimulus characteristics. I did not say they are audible or not audible, merely that the test measuring device (us) is not a fixed time invariant entity. Without considering or controlling for that, are the results accurate?
fredex said:
Expectation bias is a big confounder.
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Blind Low-high Test
No, specifically in regard to our discussion, you are wildly exaggerating.
I stated that the stimulus and environment you described was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that being the abillity of humans to localize sounds in a controlled eivironment.
You supported the claim that humans ability to localize a sound source's horizontal location was "useless".
I pointed out that the ability of humans to localize..specifically, the level of effect we can distinguish, has been known, tested, re-tested, and published for over HALF a century now.
I provided graphs, authors with publication in support of what I have stated. You provided a chaotic environment anecdote in support of your "useless" claim.
That is why I told you to re-read, as it is there.
Making the silly statement ""I was told I'm deaf, one-eared, and to go away and read the research"" will not garner you any sympathy (from me) , as everyone here has read the thread, so can easily see you are being wildly exxagerating. (at least in regard to the discussion you and I are having)...I honestly have simply glanced but ignore many of the posts which are simply mano a mano, as "testosterone alley" is not interesting to me.
Cheers, John
tnargs said:
No, specifically in regard to our discussion, you are wildly exaggerating.
I stated that the stimulus and environment you described was irrelevant to the discussion at hand, that being the abillity of humans to localize sounds in a controlled eivironment.
You supported the claim that humans ability to localize a sound source's horizontal location was "useless".
I pointed out that the ability of humans to localize..specifically, the level of effect we can distinguish, has been known, tested, re-tested, and published for over HALF a century now.
I provided graphs, authors with publication in support of what I have stated. You provided a chaotic environment anecdote in support of your "useless" claim.
That is why I told you to re-read, as it is there.
Making the silly statement ""I was told I'm deaf, one-eared, and to go away and read the research"" will not garner you any sympathy (from me) , as everyone here has read the thread, so can easily see you are being wildly exxagerating. (at least in regard to the discussion you and I are having)...I honestly have simply glanced but ignore many of the posts which are simply mano a mano, as "testosterone alley" is not interesting to me.
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
Re reading it all again we don't differ in ideas. It's our "verbage" that differs.
This height debate is interesting, I think there could be a bit of verbage problems here too. I have always thought it was an "effect" caused by the speakers in the room, not by info in the signal driving them. cheers.
Any of these will do height
Binaural Effects List
The first one listed has both headphone and speaker settings - the speaker settings implement crosstalk-canceling. It is free so I might have a play!
Thanks Daygloworange, I never knew this sort of technology existed.
Binaural Effects List
The first one listed has both headphone and speaker settings - the speaker settings implement crosstalk-canceling. It is free so I might have a play!
Thanks Daygloworange, I never knew this sort of technology existed.
Possibly related to to question can our ears tell us the height of a sound is this http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html
I have read reports that when an unsuspecting person walks into the beam (from a source not above) they invariably look up as the sound appears to be all around them (no lateral clues). I may conclude from this that the worse your stereo system is the more likely it is that you will think you are hearing height info in the sound. 🙂
I have read reports that when an unsuspecting person walks into the beam (from a source not above) they invariably look up as the sound appears to be all around them (no lateral clues). I may conclude from this that the worse your stereo system is the more likely it is that you will think you are hearing height info in the sound. 🙂
Flash from page 46
Found it, opened it, here is a picture as I promised.
You can see a peculiar RCA trying to continue the cable dimensionality and shielding. Same at both ends. Shield soldered bucket style at both ends. Measured for resistances also. No series or shunt added resistors are included. You can also see the directivity arrow on the sleeve.
Brett said:
Found it, opened it, here is a picture as I promised.
You can see a peculiar RCA trying to continue the cable dimensionality and shielding. Same at both ends. Shield soldered bucket style at both ends. Measured for resistances also. No series or shunt added resistors are included. You can also see the directivity arrow on the sleeve.
Attachments
Hi all
It makes a point regarding the main question of this thread:
http://www.by-rutgers.nl/EMC audio.html
Regards
George
It makes a point regarding the main question of this thread:
http://www.by-rutgers.nl/EMC audio.html
Regards
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.