terry j said:
In discussing this with jj (a very intelligent and well known guy), the reason ITD (delay in a channel to simulate what really happens in nature) is not used is to retain monophonic compatibility. When anything is delayed on a channel, when you combine them, there is a strong comb filtering effect.
Personally, I believe it was not done as a consequence of two things....pan pots are trivially easy to make and understand, and the electronics back in the day was unable to make a simple shift in time. Now, in this age of DSP, it is not a limitation...perhaps now it is intertia...
Griesinger uses this stuff to convert 2 into 5.1, and understands how to create an image that is outside the speaker positions....but I believe stereo is the lost child...the orphan..due to lack of popularity.
Cheers, John
thanks John
maybe this type of stuff lies behind Q sound of roger Waters fame, using proper phase effects etc to create a bigger soundfield.
BTW, ever since I got my system properly set up (using a deqx which has phase correction in it) I now find that an awful lot of recordings are in fact able to project sounds way out from the speakers, and in many cases almost at 90 degrees to my ears.
And that is on standard (probably not very well recorded cds)......imagine if the new technology could be implemented!!
maybe this type of stuff lies behind Q sound of roger Waters fame, using proper phase effects etc to create a bigger soundfield.
BTW, ever since I got my system properly set up (using a deqx which has phase correction in it) I now find that an awful lot of recordings are in fact able to project sounds way out from the speakers, and in many cases almost at 90 degrees to my ears.
And that is on standard (probably not very well recorded cds)......imagine if the new technology could be implemented!!
A question for subjectivists.
If a person is cured by unwittingly taking a Placebo would you assume that there was more to the placebo than just sugar?
If a person is cured by unwittingly taking a Placebo would you assume that there was more to the placebo than just sugar?
Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
Yes, yes of course. I need to open my mind to realize that our modern day alchemists are consistently and repeatedly engineering and designing unmeasurable, unknown to science "goodness" parameters into cables, amps and all other widgets that comprise a "good" system.....by accident.
How come Pioneer and Radio Shack have no such luck?
Agreed. Price. Brand. 1/2 inch thick machined face plates. Manly isolation feet, etc, etc.
No wonder they induce Kryptonite deafness upon our hearing superheroes.
cheers,
AJ
thetubeguy1954 said:
Yes, yes of course. I need to open my mind to realize that our modern day alchemists are consistently and repeatedly engineering and designing unmeasurable, unknown to science "goodness" parameters into cables, amps and all other widgets that comprise a "good" system.....by accident.
How come Pioneer and Radio Shack have no such luck?
Andy Graddon said:DBT's mask many things
Agreed. Price. Brand. 1/2 inch thick machined face plates. Manly isolation feet, etc, etc.
No wonder they induce Kryptonite deafness upon our hearing superheroes.
cheers,
AJ
Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
20 to 1? So the super sensitive ECM microphone could detect from, say, 20 Hz to 400 Hz but no higher? That mic doesn't seem so special to me...
thetubeguy1954 said:
20 to 1? So the super sensitive ECM microphone could detect from, say, 20 Hz to 400 Hz but no higher? That mic doesn't seem so special to me...
fredex said:
By definition it is not a placebo if the person is unaware of its intended purpose. I think. Otherwise the answer would definitely be "possibly". Unless the symptoms were due to hypoglycaemia of course.
Question for objectivists. We do not know (at a molecular level) how general anaesthesia works - do you think that the anaesthetised state might be simply a form of expectation bias?
Andre Visser said:
Here we have him, the golden eared god. The one person on the planet who can identify, in controlled tests, the differences in sound waves in a room when one cable that meets the basic engineering requirements for the application is swapped for another. No fancy "deliberately broken" cables with high impedance that will tailor the frequency response, no phono cables driven by a cartridge that resonates or filters FR in concert with the cable. This man can identify *normal* cables swapped out. Wow.
I think you should go on a world tour. You know, like Uli. Wear a blindfold or something. Audiophiles will flock to the show. Let them set up the DBT apparatus themselves. Better still, have the AES or IEEE design, implement and certify the event. I would personally pay $100 to witness such a certified event.
It would be even better (and more satisfactory to the testing authority) if a modest population of golden eared gods accompanied you on tour, all demonstrating their ability.
Oh wait a minute... that test has already been done. It was a null result.
Darn. I was getting a bit hopeful there.
Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
AJ,
can you prove that DBT "DON'T" mask small audible differences in cables?
Thanks
AJ,
can you prove that DBT "DON'T" mask small audible differences in cables?
Thanks
fredex said:
A friend of mine asked me about magnetic bracelets, as he wore one and swore the device helped his ailment (don't remember what the ailment was). He asked me if they worked, and if so, why. He asked me because I work with magnets "quite a bit"..
I provided three responses.
1. There is no scientific (magnetic/biology) reason I am aware of for a magnetic bracelet to work...
2. There is no scientific reason I know of for the bracelet to harm the wearer.
3. If he feels better because he wears it, who am I to tell him to take it off?
Who am I to ridicule him for wasting effort or money on something that cannot work. For all I know, his ailment may have been real, and it may have gone away when he used the bracelet. Correlation and causation were not distinguished, and the mind and body do interesting things.
I note that in the intervening year, the bracelet did indeed go away, he no longer wears it. But not because I said anything.
Cheers, John
Re: Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
What an odd question....prove a null??
AJ is really just repeating the consensus of most audio researchers who believe the dbt protocol is bulletproof. As such, his viewpoint is indeed quite valid (although I do not necessarily condone the method of his delivery).
My point all along, which AJ asked about, is this: is the instrument being used sensitive to the system response... Is it valid to use a stimulus signal which bears NO RESEMBLANCE to any sound than can be created in nature???
It is within that context that I question the standard dbt mindset...I do not complain about the protocols, just the signal being used and the ignoring of human adaptation to an incorrect and un-natural stimulus..
It bears repeating...THERE HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND IN NATURE, A SOUND WHICH ARRIVES AT BOTH EARS AT THE SAME TIME, AND YET WITH DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES....
EVER.
Until stereo was created..with the pan pot.
Cheers, John
Andy Graddon said:
What an odd question....prove a null??
AJ is really just repeating the consensus of most audio researchers who believe the dbt protocol is bulletproof. As such, his viewpoint is indeed quite valid (although I do not necessarily condone the method of his delivery).
My point all along, which AJ asked about, is this: is the instrument being used sensitive to the system response... Is it valid to use a stimulus signal which bears NO RESEMBLANCE to any sound than can be created in nature???
It is within that context that I question the standard dbt mindset...I do not complain about the protocols, just the signal being used and the ignoring of human adaptation to an incorrect and un-natural stimulus..
It bears repeating...THERE HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND IN NATURE, A SOUND WHICH ARRIVES AT BOTH EARS AT THE SAME TIME, AND YET WITH DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES....
EVER.
Until stereo was created..with the pan pot.
Cheers, John
@Andre Visser
Re your successful blind tests - roughly what was your identification rate of any particular cable? 100%, 80%, 55%
Alan
Re your successful blind tests - roughly what was your identification rate of any particular cable? 100%, 80%, 55%
Alan
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
Surely a bit of wax in one ear would do that? 🙂
(nb You don't need to reply to this)
jneutron said:
Surely a bit of wax in one ear would do that? 🙂
(nb You don't need to reply to this)
thetubeguy1954 said:
Yes, I have been there, I fully sympathise. It took a while to move on, it wasn't easy. Once you move on you will feel like an ascetic in rags, never sure of yourself. But one look back at the others still on the glittering golden way, surrounded by high priests chanting the mantras and sutras, and there are no regrets.
BTW most so-called objectivists are only trying to help. They know they'll get no thanks.
It is also a complete misrepresentation to say "objectivists" all think it is all done with measurements. All 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.
thetubeguy1954 said:
The ear is an audio device. It has been measured and studied intensely. Its limitations are well understood by scientists, and roundly denied by audiophiles who believe in their personal listening experiences in uncontrolled circumstances. Emphasis *believe in*
Sweet diversion, but the question was sweeter. What's the straight, unsweetened answer?
@ AJinFLA,
if i got your idea correctly, i´d think you could argue on exactly the same line for loudspeaker development.
How could one develop a loudspeaker if it is not known in which room it will have to play in the future?
@ Andy_Graddon,
In a proper test setup controls are mandatory (both negative and positive controls); by the use of controls the experimentator can assure that listeners reach the required level of sensitivity under the certain test protocol.
Unfortunately most tests in this special field (cables and so on) haven´t used controls, so we don´t know if we can rely on the results.
@ fredex,
i´ve read some interesting papers about placebo effects. The current state seems to be that the socalled placebo effect in medicine was to a certain degree just a misinterpretation of test data, while external factors were not taken into account.
?Hrjobartsson? did a meta analysis of over 100 studies and came to the conclusion above.
Painkiller seem to be a special division; a recent study showed that on a biochemical level the process was the same as were a real painkiller given instead of the placebo.
So even in that field a lot of questions are left. 🙂
if i got your idea correctly, i´d think you could argue on exactly the same line for loudspeaker development.
How could one develop a loudspeaker if it is not known in which room it will have to play in the future?
@ Andy_Graddon,
In a proper test setup controls are mandatory (both negative and positive controls); by the use of controls the experimentator can assure that listeners reach the required level of sensitivity under the certain test protocol.
Unfortunately most tests in this special field (cables and so on) haven´t used controls, so we don´t know if we can rely on the results.
@ fredex,
i´ve read some interesting papers about placebo effects. The current state seems to be that the socalled placebo effect in medicine was to a certain degree just a misinterpretation of test data, while external factors were not taken into account.
?Hrjobartsson? did a meta analysis of over 100 studies and came to the conclusion above.
Painkiller seem to be a special division; a recent study showed that on a biochemical level the process was the same as were a real painkiller given instead of the placebo.
So even in that field a lot of questions are left. 🙂
tnargs said:
Then no. I am aware of the placebo effect. Why ask - are there some subjectivists who do not acknowledge the placebo effect?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Obvious "IF" You're Open-Minded
Ah, but my statement was...""THERE HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND IN NATURE, A SOUND WHICH ARRIVES AT BOTH EARS AT THE SAME TIME, AND YET WITH DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES""
The integrity of the receiver is a different animal..😉
Yes, indeed it will. In point of fact, this is what happened to me about a month ago...I was sitting on the beach, and idly opening and closing my eyes to determine the location of the voices around me. I found that even with one ear blocked big time by wax, I was able to determine the location of the people rather well.
It showed me that the time delay inter-ear was dominating my discerning of source direction, and that my brain was fighting the erroneous stimulus.
With no alteration in the time delay, the amplitude difference did not alter perceived direction that much.
Cheers, John
Alan Hope said:
Ah, but my statement was...""THERE HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND IN NATURE, A SOUND WHICH ARRIVES AT BOTH EARS AT THE SAME TIME, AND YET WITH DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES""
The integrity of the receiver is a different animal..😉
Yes, indeed it will. In point of fact, this is what happened to me about a month ago...I was sitting on the beach, and idly opening and closing my eyes to determine the location of the voices around me. I found that even with one ear blocked big time by wax, I was able to determine the location of the people rather well.
It showed me that the time delay inter-ear was dominating my discerning of source direction, and that my brain was fighting the erroneous stimulus.
With no alteration in the time delay, the amplitude difference did not alter perceived direction that much.
Cheers, John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.