anatech said:It's directional!
No, no, youv'e got it wrong. Since some people claim that ordinary cables are directional, the good thing with this cable is that it is bidirectional, so you can turn it either way. 🙂
jneutron said:
First, equilateral means 30 deg, not 45 for the direction of the source, which is exactly 3 " path lenght difference. The 220usec is a rough number, not counting individual head size differences, diffraction around the head, etc., but it is bad enough to indicate that a "the 100 usec/.1dB shifted test signal " on a stereo tape is very much different from a real arrival time/intensity difference at the ear (in case of stereo reproduction).
Also depth perception is qiute bad without the help of volume comparison, ambience, HF rolloff with distance and sight! Arrival time differences due to the source distance pay very-very role small in distance perception (AFAIK).
Second, try the following experiment: play bandwith limited (>1K) pink noise from one speaker only. Block one ear completely and close your eyes, and try to find the direction of the speaker. If you allow head movement, you can point out the speaker with one ear only with surprising accuracy.
What you imagine hearing between a wide spaced speaker pair has not much to do with the real mechanisms of hearing.
Well, DUH, I knew that...fcserei said:
Hooooeee...major egg on face..they need a smiley for that one.. That of course, explains why I had to go to 30 degrees on the ITD graph to get the 220 level delay you spoke of..lets see, when did I learn about equilateral triangles???..ah, the second thing to go is the memory...
What was interesting also was the later statement from you that had the 320 usec number, which is also closer to the 45 angle I incorrectly was thinking of.
fcserei said:
For initial calculations, the rough number is exact enough. The intent is to calculate exactly what is available to a pair of ideal receivers 6 inches apart for the purposes of defining the source parameters that are required to provide the exact information a real source would provide..After this, of course, accomodations must be considered for what our capabilities really are, including the points you have made.
My numbers are the ideal ones upon which we must start. In addition, they require a septum to remove the side images.
fcserei said:
The sensitivity numbers are startling when it comes to depth....rather eye popping
Using the ear's frequency vs angle sensitivity is of no use for the description of a virtual soundstage.fcserei said:
fcserei said:
Actually, it does. It is of course, a poor simulation, as nobody goes around with a septum in place. But your statement that imaging is denied with 2 speakers, is inconsistent even with the little speakers I have on either side of my computer monitor.
Thanks for responding, I had worried that the comics had taken over the thread.
Oh, btw..what was the source of your information?? I asked because I wanted to read it..
And here's the raw ITD graph I was referencing. and the depth differential one..
Cheers, John
Attachments
jneutron said:
John,
As the thread is on interconnects etc, do I take it YOU are the comics?😉
Jan Didden
Hmmm..
I couldn't remember why you were on my ignore list, as I tend to remember the important things...so I just hadta click on that thingy that says if you wanna view, click here.
Clearly, my previous desire must have been one of ignoring those who choose to bring nothing to the table. As you just did.
You dissapoint me.. Others spoke highly of you. Perhaps sometime in the future, you will engage, rather than glibly attack..
Cheers, John
Edit: As I re-read your post, am I simply misreading your intent, and you really were trying to be funny??.. Or, is this how you are, trying to be funny at the expense of others..
I'm afraid I cannot tell..
I couldn't remember why you were on my ignore list, as I tend to remember the important things...so I just hadta click on that thingy that says if you wanna view, click here.
Clearly, my previous desire must have been one of ignoring those who choose to bring nothing to the table. As you just did.
You dissapoint me.. Others spoke highly of you. Perhaps sometime in the future, you will engage, rather than glibly attack..
Cheers, John
Edit: As I re-read your post, am I simply misreading your intent, and you really were trying to be funny??.. Or, is this how you are, trying to be funny at the expense of others..
I'm afraid I cannot tell..
jneutron said:
Yes. exactly. My point is that when you calculate x msec/y dB difference in an ideal setup, that is only a small part of the equation. ITD and ILD are important but so is pinna filtering and consistency with thead movements. The real problem is not how to create/record correct ITD and ILD, but how to deliver them to the listener ears. It is surely not lost in the cables 🙂
Can you point me to some data. I hope they are not like those calculations where from the fact that in the front with signal with HF content directional resolution can be 0.5-1 deg, so they calculate ITD change from the theoretical model in the usec range, and the conclusion is that we must hear up to Mhz range. 🙁
No, but it is very important in the cone of confusion resolution and ambience perception.
Also never occures in nature the phenomenon that 2 distant source represent one real in the middle. 🙂
What you are talking about is stereo image - which is quite far from the ease of the natural hearing. Nobody said you can not imagine a stereo soundstage between the speakers. The problem is that the ITD, ILD pinna filtering, headmovement clues reproduced this way are inconsistent/destroyed. It forces your brain to work hard to select what info to consider real and what to omit. This can be enjoyable but never real (unless you have large, live room with benign acoustics, where the ambience info can mask theinconsistencies).
In case of mono over stereo speakers it works because the LF content of music has more voting power than the discrepancies in HF, but just turn 90 degrees to your speakers and listen to the same center image.
What is sad: the ITD, ILD and HRTF can be quite accurately recorded on 2 channels, but stereo recordings are not stereo playback compatible.
jneutron said:
Yeah, it always pays to read it correctly the first time...
Actually I WAS trying to be funny, kind of tongue-in-cheek? I mean, it IS funny to complain of people trying to take over the thread if that is what you just did.
(Just trying to be tongue-in-cheek again!😉 ).
Apparently I'm not doing a good job.
Ohh well...
Jan Didden
Whose to say that discussing the sonic effects of cable color is any more comical than cable discussions are in the first place... relatively speaking? 🙂
janneman said:
Apparently, I as well..my apologies for mis-reading you.
This discussion is indeed about IC's. If one ignores all but frequency response, then IC's cannot make a difference.
I do not believe it is that simple. To state that IC's cannot make a difference requires a criteria to be surpassed. I believe the criteria are incorrect.
Post 96 is where the test criteria started being discussed. You seem to be asserting that any discussion of test criteria for discerning the difference an IC could make, is threadjacking?
I do not concur..
Cheers, John
poobah said:
Me..😉
Actually, the comments were indeed funny, I was certainly laughing..
I did however, wish to continue the discussion I was having with fcserei, and was worried that interest would be lost very quickly.
I've seen threads die as a result of such comic relief, as well as by flames..and did not wish that..
Cheers, John
Hi John,
You have a good point there. Please excuse the comic relief, I couldn't resist when the link came up.
-Chris
You have a good point there. Please excuse the comic relief, I couldn't resist when the link came up.
-Chris
jneutron said:
OK let me at least try to be constructive (I am really serious now).
I have tried to follow your reasoning also in the other thread where the discussion drifted to IDF and IDD etc. As I understood it, your reasoning is as follows (I may be wrong, please tell me if so. Gentle, please!).
There are many factors involved in cable performance. It is possible in theory that cables do not treat the various frequencies equally. That means that some frequencies can be delayed wrt others, or changed in relative level, and maybe other influences.
Let us assume that the two interconnects in a stereo are the same in length and thus in attributes.
For the IDF and IDD discussion to be appropriate in a cable thread, these cable influences need to influence IDT, IDD. How can that be?
I thought that the frequency dependent delay may change the localisation of one instrument wrt another. Although the cables are the same, there might be a change in localisation for depth, not for direction.
Is this a valid reasoning?
Let me be bold and assume that the above is not totally nonsense. Let's cut through the chase: if this is what you suspect, let's take a probable figure for IDF, IDD audibility, say 200uS. Let's not waste time to bicker whether it should be 230 or 310 or 187.
Now let's see if there are realistic cable attributes that can cause a relative shift of frequencies within the audio spectrum, equal in both channels, corresponding to 200uS of sound travelling through the air.
Man, I wish I knew enough of it to do it myself!
Jan Didden
fcserei said:
We are saying the same thing.
Agreed also. The question is a two parter..1. what is the absolute ideal ITD/IID (ILD) that a single point source can deliver to the ears, and 2. what degradation in hearing capability means to those ideal numbers. You cannot get lost in the second while examining the first..also, the first cannot be extended to the second.fcserei said:
re:depth..
Hear in the Mhz range??People actually say that??fcserei said:
The worst I've come to is trying to come to terms with the thought that some are able to distinguish 2 to 5 usec ITD's, even though in the 500 to 12K range..that is rather amazing.
I'll post a graph. I tried previously, but found this forum only supports one jpeg per post..
fcserei said:
That is what I have been talking of all along. Stereo image. I am suprised that you were not.. ah well, apples and oranges..
My questions re this thread have always been...
1. Can an IC affect the delivery of content via ITD and IID changes.
2. Can those changes be heard.
fcserei said:
Oh man, do we ever agree on that.
My first gripe is the pan pot. wild alteration of IID, with zero ITD. very artificial..
Here's the pic. Each line represents the change in ITD as a result of a depth movement from one depth to another. As is seen, they all hit zero on axis, which of course is meaningless, we can't hear that well.
Cheers, John
Attachments
Hey, I'm the one who mistook equilateral triangle for 45 degrees..I don't think I'm in a position to throw stones.🙄janneman said:
yes, that is my assertion.janneman said:
Yes. But, instruments are never one frequency. So, as an addition, can a cable alter the ITD and IID with frequency, causing some of the harmonics of an instrument to shift in our perception relative to other harmonics of the same instrument.janneman said:
I had this problem with an eq of mine. It caused the sibilance of a female vocal to shift about two feet to the right of the main components of her vocals. Even with a mono source...
I believe the word I am alluding to is smearing..the spreading in the virtual soundstage of part of the content, but not all.
janneman said:
The 100, 200, 300 numbers being bandied about are actually the kinda numbers needed for absolute localization..putting the head in a vice and pointing to the image.
We are not actually very good at that, what we are better at is relative position. For example, two bells at ten feet, one a foot to the right of the other, two different notes.. The issue is, can we tell which one is on the right?
That is differential localization. It is the derivative of the graph I presented. And exceedingly dependent on how far away the sources are.
janneman said:
Ah, but that is why I discuss such on forums with people like you and fcsceri..because I wish to learn and draw upon others.
I believe relevant numbers can be arrived at, to actually test IC's for this stuff. And I believe a forum like this is a good basis for arriving at those numbers.
I am far happier that our past misunderstandings (perhaps mine alone) are behind, this is a much better dialogue.
Cheers, John
OK, John, that is really interesting. But still, sorry for continuing to press this, is there not ANY reasonable acceptable number of audibility for minimum IDF, IID that we can use as a yardstick? Do we really need to start the research for this from scratch? If so, we can spend years discussing that, and then we should start a thread "On the audibility of IDF, IDD" or something like that.
But if there is a mutually acceptable number, let's see if we can throw that at cables to determine if ANY physically realistic cable can come close to that number.
Jan Didden
But if there is a mutually acceptable number, let's see if we can throw that at cables to determine if ANY physically realistic cable can come close to that number.
Jan Didden
jneutron said:
Sibilance is in the kHZ range where ITD is loosing importance, ILD , HRTF and pinna filtering takes over. The shift in sibilance with the eq can be very muh because of the inconsistencies in the auditory clues. One small shift in head position, altered freq/phase response etc. and the comb filtering from the double arrival change at the ear's entrance usually in a destructive way, not reinforcing the perceived direction, but questioning it.
This comb filtering also interfere with the pinna direction finding comb filtering.
The superposition of the two comb filtering can result in a much bigger perceived difference than the actual diff in the reproduction chain would suggest. You don't have to have 200 (or whatever) usec diff.
That's why we don't have definite numbers for the audibility treshold of the stereo reproduction chain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.