Oh, and don't forget guys...
If one uses either a single driver or a two way system, one has to take into account the physical location of the woofer, especially if it reproduces any of the signal of interest.
2 uSec of ITD is shall we say, incredibly small?
Sound travels 1137 feet per second at 25 C..13,644 inches per second. 73 microseconds per inch.
2 uSec is 2/73 inches, or 27 mils, .027 inches.
If the woofer is moving this much, it is dithering the arrival time of any higher frequency signal it is reproducing..
I don't know about anybody else, but I typically move the woofers a tad more than that..otherwise, where's the fun?...😀
Cheers, John
If one uses either a single driver or a two way system, one has to take into account the physical location of the woofer, especially if it reproduces any of the signal of interest.
2 uSec of ITD is shall we say, incredibly small?
Sound travels 1137 feet per second at 25 C..13,644 inches per second. 73 microseconds per inch.
2 uSec is 2/73 inches, or 27 mils, .027 inches.
If the woofer is moving this much, it is dithering the arrival time of any higher frequency signal it is reproducing..
I don't know about anybody else, but I typically move the woofers a tad more than that..otherwise, where's the fun?...😀
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
We don't. It's obvious that spatial positioning of sound sources is something which is calculated rather than measured.
The relevance of spatial hearing with respect to audible cable differences seems very limited to me.
Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Hello Again Fredex! I didn't expect the article to convince you or any other objectivist here. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It's just from what I've seen in the various audio forums 99.99999999999% of all objectivists are 100% postive that measurements & specs tell the whole story. In my almost 40 years in this hobby my anecdotal experience has "proven" to me that's just not the way it is, period! For Example: I've witnessed that amps can measure well but sound poor in comparision to an amp that measured less well. That's why I use a 40W/ch integrated SET amp.
I'm going to try and explain my audio POV to you. First and foremost my choice in audio equipment is based on my subjective opinion of what live, unamplified music sounds like. I attend symphonies, and as many outdoor concerts as I can ---{both unamplified & amplified}--- I also play acoustic guitar. My choices are made in this order; 1) cost, 2) sound quality and finally 3) visual appeal. Although I have a fairly expensive audio rig ---{Mastersound Reference 845 integrated SET, BlueNote Stibbert CDP, Aliante Pinafarina One speakers, Nordost BlueHeaven speakerwire, Stealth Audio M-21 Super Powercords and I've recently replaced $1800 ICs with a friends DIY, cheap and ugly ICs that sound better than any other IC I've ever heard}--- I actually listen via low-fi most of the time, which consists of music from my car's CDP 1 hour to and from work and 8-9 hours a day via a small transistor radio at work. For me it's the music first and foremost! However at home I want the best best possible replication of live, unamplified music I can afford.
Once I've "proven" something to myself ---{such as there are sonic differences in wires}--- I'm content that it's true and really don't care what the reasons are that might cause these audible differences! I'm not seeking neutrality or accuracy as an objectivist would define it. As far as I'm concerned my SET is more accurate than most solid state amps, NOT because it measures more accurately but, because it sounds more like what my subjective opinion tells me is an accurate replication of live, unamplified music!
I'm more interested in a listening experience I can enjoy, than proving I can hear differences or even understand why these sonic differences exist in the first place. That doesn't mean I have no interest in how something might work, or whether it really works or is imagined. Whether a device actually works as described or whether it's a placebo, doesn't really matter as long as it leads to a more enjoyable listening experience.
I believe wires and audio components sound different ---{not always, yet sometimes dramatically}--- and I believe that sometimes my ears are fooled ---{actually everytime I hear a soundstage, my ears have been fooled}--- the thing is this is a hobby and it's supposed to be fun, not work! For me and I believe most subjectivists, it is fun. Sadly I cannot say it seems that way for most objectivists. To me it seems that objectivists get more pleasure from attempting to prove subjectivists are wrong than they do from listening to their audio systems.
fredex said:
Hello Again Fredex! I didn't expect the article to convince you or any other objectivist here. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It's just from what I've seen in the various audio forums 99.99999999999% of all objectivists are 100% postive that measurements & specs tell the whole story. In my almost 40 years in this hobby my anecdotal experience has "proven" to me that's just not the way it is, period! For Example: I've witnessed that amps can measure well but sound poor in comparision to an amp that measured less well. That's why I use a 40W/ch integrated SET amp.
I'm going to try and explain my audio POV to you. First and foremost my choice in audio equipment is based on my subjective opinion of what live, unamplified music sounds like. I attend symphonies, and as many outdoor concerts as I can ---{both unamplified & amplified}--- I also play acoustic guitar. My choices are made in this order; 1) cost, 2) sound quality and finally 3) visual appeal. Although I have a fairly expensive audio rig ---{Mastersound Reference 845 integrated SET, BlueNote Stibbert CDP, Aliante Pinafarina One speakers, Nordost BlueHeaven speakerwire, Stealth Audio M-21 Super Powercords and I've recently replaced $1800 ICs with a friends DIY, cheap and ugly ICs that sound better than any other IC I've ever heard}--- I actually listen via low-fi most of the time, which consists of music from my car's CDP 1 hour to and from work and 8-9 hours a day via a small transistor radio at work. For me it's the music first and foremost! However at home I want the best best possible replication of live, unamplified music I can afford.
Once I've "proven" something to myself ---{such as there are sonic differences in wires}--- I'm content that it's true and really don't care what the reasons are that might cause these audible differences! I'm not seeking neutrality or accuracy as an objectivist would define it. As far as I'm concerned my SET is more accurate than most solid state amps, NOT because it measures more accurately but, because it sounds more like what my subjective opinion tells me is an accurate replication of live, unamplified music!
I'm more interested in a listening experience I can enjoy, than proving I can hear differences or even understand why these sonic differences exist in the first place. That doesn't mean I have no interest in how something might work, or whether it really works or is imagined. Whether a device actually works as described or whether it's a placebo, doesn't really matter as long as it leads to a more enjoyable listening experience.
I believe wires and audio components sound different ---{not always, yet sometimes dramatically}--- and I believe that sometimes my ears are fooled ---{actually everytime I hear a soundstage, my ears have been fooled}--- the thing is this is a hobby and it's supposed to be fun, not work! For me and I believe most subjectivists, it is fun. Sadly I cannot say it seems that way for most objectivists. To me it seems that objectivists get more pleasure from attempting to prove subjectivists are wrong than they do from listening to their audio systems.
Jakob2 said:
I have worked with Audio Diffmaker and ABX software just as you described. It can be helpful to create a differential signal with Diffmaker to get a clue for ABX listening tests.
Hoewever, to conclude that a difference between two signals is audible and of practical use, the difference must be audible in the original signal. If a difference is masked by the original music, it is not relevant.
Interesting would be to investigate if audiophiles are more influenced by the knowledge of the existence of masked differences than other people. Information about the system certainly has a psychological effect while listening to music.
ravon said:
This has been my point all along. We cannot measure the spatial positioning using current state of the art instrumentation.
But yet, humans do it without computation, all the time.
How do we correlate what a reproduction system can do with respect to image stability and placement if we cannot measure it?
As you stated, we calculate it.
So given that, where are the calculations? Who has even defined the problem??
ravon said:
So given the daunting challenge of spatial imagery via two channel reproduction systems, and interaction between cabling, the response is....no relevance?
Well, that's one approach. But that is certainly not universal.
I have pointed out but a few confounders to the accurate reproduction of a spatial image, and these are the trivially easy ones. Imagine the difficult ones..😱
Cheers, John
There's nothing wrong with calculating things. Our brains do it all the time. You seem to forget that a brain is a sophisticated neural computer.jneutron said:
Well, without being able to oversee the complete picture, there are people working in this area: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~robust/Papers/SternWangBrownChapter.pdf
I didn't find a single word about the influence of cables.
In my opinion, the challenge of two channel sound reproduction should be to reproduce the recording.
The illusion of spatial sound imagery is what Philips used to build in their gettoblasters in the eighties and nineties 😉
@ ravon,
yes a valid listening test is the way it should be done.
Accompanied by proper measurements to assure that every piece is working as intended.
yes a valid listening test is the way it should be done.
Accompanied by proper measurements to assure that every piece is working as intended.
ravon said:
You've no need to state that to a geek..ask me about transmission lines......😱 😀
ravon said:
No, I did not forget that. The point is, we cannot duplicate that computational aspect with measurement equipment yet.
But yet, some will claim that rudimentary measurements (which is current SOTA) is sufficient to determine all the parametrics that the neural computer we are born with uses to determine spacial imaging. Silly things like single channel uncorrelated spectral analysis..pffft.
ravon said:
You won't find anything about cables there.. Did you expect them to mention cables???? All the high level researchers I spoke with run the other way at the mention of cables. Seems they all consider the topic as idiotic, stupid, ridiculous, insane.. Quite honestly, I cannot blame them, given what I've seen touted as "scientific explanations"..
Nor, solid state vs tubes, nor even something as simple as the assymetrical AC transfer function caused by an overhung voice coil.
None of those are within their statement of work, not their concern. They've laid the foundation of understanding which guys like US should apply to the task at hand..
Nice link, lots of stuff I knew, but plenty of things to learn as well..twill keep me busy...
ravon said:
Agreed...but...
What is the recording? It is two channels of amplitude only, with image placement governed by simple IID...no ITD?
And in reproducing the recording, should we ignore effects which can alter some of the recording delay 2 uSec and some small intensity difference, say .2 dB?
Honestly, I ignore any and all interchannel effects when I play my system...but it is not so important to me. But others consider image placement of interest to them..
ravon said:
As I recall, there was no illusion..definitely in your face imagery.....😱 😀
Cheers, John
ravon said:
Is that the easiest way to prove your point or are we trying to get real answers?
AJinFLA said:
Anyone?
Is it classified top secret information, where you would have to kill us after telling us?
(There is no shame in admitting "Don't really know but still believe")
jneutron said:
Then I'm even more amazed by the vast knowledge and skill of the designers/engineers of such cables, since they should have no idea what equipment the end user will attach these between. They put Miss Cleo to shame.
cheers,
AJ
jneutron said:
Hi John,
Remind me again, why would DBTs completely mask spatial differences among cables (with same or very close LCR), but not say, loudspeakers?
I'm confounded by this issue. Thanks.
cheers,
AJ
jneutron said:
In that case I suggest we discuss an unusual TL concept I'd like to build around my Jordan drivers. 😉
If you give a monkey a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
As long as my listening room is not acoustically "good" I dont care too much about imaging through better cables 😉
AJinFLA said:
Consider my relation with Bob at SP. I gave him the details to create a speaker wire with any combination of L and C that he desired(within constraints of course, as lightspeed is indeed a limit).
He chooses a specific model for his wire, uses the spreadsheet, makes the cables...listens to them with his speakers, iterates...simple.
I do not know what his model is, don't really worry. It'll either do something audible, or it won't. But the parametrics were arrived at using rigorous science. He tests with his ears..again, don't know what he hears, don't care what he hears, don't know if there is a difference..I am not worried..
His model is either accurate, or it isn't..same with other vendors..
AJinFLA said:
DBT's and loudspeakers is already done, it's not even something to speak of..how many people buy a speaker pair based on the realism of the spatial imaging they perceive..nobody questions their sanity for purchasing speakers which seem to put the artist within the room...
DBT/cable/spatial....
We are asked to discern the location of a source, but we are given only half the information humans use to discern the location of that source.
Pan pots do indeed shift the apparent location in space, but not very nicely...
Panning by ITD or by IID is frequency dependent...both deviate from the cosine law..(Griesinger, May, 2002, figure "5"). This naturally splits a multi-spectral source into a sideways spread...among other things...
But it's an un-natural stimulus..never consistent between speaker setups, and requires the listener ADAPT to a stimulus which is not a naturally occuring one.
If the information receiver (human) adapts to the stimulus pattern, how does one retain control of the test??? If my analog dvm altered the full scale reading based upon what I am measuring, did so in an unknown amount of time, and did not inform me of this fact, how would I consider it an accurate reading???
Cheers, John
ravon said:
no no no no no no no....
Wires... transmission line cables and wires...I donnna know squatzola about transmission line "speakers"....sorry bout that..
ravon said:
That has been my point all along. Measurement of uncorrelated magnitude spectra between the input and output of any piece of equipment is exactly like calling everything a nail...especially if that equipment is measured within a lab only setup..
ravon said:
We agree. It's not a bad stance to take, actually. But extending that to others who have better rooms or speakers, or listen for imaging...is an incorrect and most likely, invalid extension...one that I am cautious not to do..
Cheers, John
It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
AJinFLA stated "So the psychogenic crowd believe that the phenomena they "hear" exists in physical reality, but "it's" properties cannot be measured eh? Pray tell, how does one design and engineer a widget to have these properties?"
===========================================
It appears that yet once again due to his intense closed-mindedness towards any audio device or belief who's working principles he doesn't comprehend. AJinFLA needs to revert to mocking, berating or dispargng the audio device or belief.
"If" he opened his mind just a sliver AJinFLA would realize that sometimes an idea or device is created or discovered completely by accident! A perfect example would be Velcro. Back around 1948 George de Mestral, a Swiss mountaineer, had the frustrating experience of having burrs attach to his clothing during his hikes. He teamed up with a local weaver from a textile plant to design what they called "locking tape". Quite by accident they discovered that nylon, when sewn under ultraviolet light, formed industructable hooks that could match up with nylon loops. The trademarked name Velcro comes from "vel" or velvet and "cro" from the French word crochet which means hook. Whether AJinFLA chooses to believe it or not this same exact thing most likely happens in audio as well!
There's a HUGE difference between an audio device whose properties cannot be measured, like AJinFLA stated and when we either don't know how to measure for a specific sonic trait or when we don't know which properties to measure ---{when concerning a specific sonic attribute like how well an audio component replicates a soundstage.} <<<<< Perhaps there is a measurement for determining this. If there is I don't know which one it is.
AJinFLA stated "So the psychogenic crowd believe that the phenomena they "hear" exists in physical reality, but "it's" properties cannot be measured eh? Pray tell, how does one design and engineer a widget to have these properties?"
===========================================
It appears that yet once again due to his intense closed-mindedness towards any audio device or belief who's working principles he doesn't comprehend. AJinFLA needs to revert to mocking, berating or dispargng the audio device or belief.
"If" he opened his mind just a sliver AJinFLA would realize that sometimes an idea or device is created or discovered completely by accident! A perfect example would be Velcro. Back around 1948 George de Mestral, a Swiss mountaineer, had the frustrating experience of having burrs attach to his clothing during his hikes. He teamed up with a local weaver from a textile plant to design what they called "locking tape". Quite by accident they discovered that nylon, when sewn under ultraviolet light, formed industructable hooks that could match up with nylon loops. The trademarked name Velcro comes from "vel" or velvet and "cro" from the French word crochet which means hook. Whether AJinFLA chooses to believe it or not this same exact thing most likely happens in audio as well!
There's a HUGE difference between an audio device whose properties cannot be measured, like AJinFLA stated and when we either don't know how to measure for a specific sonic trait or when we don't know which properties to measure ---{when concerning a specific sonic attribute like how well an audio component replicates a soundstage.} <<<<< Perhaps there is a measurement for determining this. If there is I don't know which one it is.
Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
An accident leading to Velcro would've been something like someone trying to create snag proof pantyhose and discovering that nylon makes the hooks and thus inventing Velcro.
In your example, someone finds something in nature and is inspired to try to duplicate it in "locking tape." The result after trying to replicate the hooks and loops is a nylon product that creates hooks and loops. That is not by accident, that is by design that came about from application of the scientific method to research via experimentation that aimed to reproduce a natural phenomenon.
Perhaps you should try an example that reinforces your point rather than works against it?
I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Accident" means by accident.thetubeguy1954 said:
An accident leading to Velcro would've been something like someone trying to create snag proof pantyhose and discovering that nylon makes the hooks and thus inventing Velcro.
In your example, someone finds something in nature and is inspired to try to duplicate it in "locking tape." The result after trying to replicate the hooks and loops is a nylon product that creates hooks and loops. That is not by accident, that is by design that came about from application of the scientific method to research via experimentation that aimed to reproduce a natural phenomenon.
Perhaps you should try an example that reinforces your point rather than works against it?
Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Thanks for sharing your audio POV. I would never derive pleasure from proving you wrong.
You already believe that sometimes your ears are fooled. It is just a small step from there to believing that you don't know for sure exactly when your ears are fooling you or not.
You could be on the way.....................😀
thetubeguy1954 said:
Thanks for sharing your audio POV. I would never derive pleasure from proving you wrong.
You already believe that sometimes your ears are fooled. It is just a small step from there to believing that you don't know for sure exactly when your ears are fooling you or not.
You could be on the way.....................😀
jneutron said:
This is probably bread and butter for you guys, but this snippet I found very interesting.
Is there any more data on this (at a level even I could understand??) Further, can I assume that as the 'pitfalls' of the current approach are known that we also could have/use a better method of shifting the image in space?? If we do have it, why is it not being used...industry inertia or expense or something else?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.