No, I was not surprised because I knew that binaural localization does not require reflections nor reverberation. When I was a young student of physic-math school of Irkutsk university (like in summer breaks of Western high school), we had a summer camp where we living in tents solved problems of physics in the day-to-day life. One of problem we found was quite interesting, sitting on open air we knew where mosquitoes were flying around our heads, killing them in a single attempt, without paying attention. It was in Siberia, you know, where mosquitoes live during summers. Can you imagine how precise time delays and level differences we needed to calculate instantly in order to know where to slap?
I am the believer Frank. But my beliefs are based on my experiments. When I was young I used to satisfy my curiosity in the laboratory where I did research how to fool imagination working on design of analog synthesis and other sound effects.
no i wouldnt like it better -
No I wouldnt like them. I have already been down that road. I have a pretty accurate speaker (the new Quad ESL) and it is better in most everyway -EXCEPT in the missing bass and dynamic range. I am never happy with missing bass systems. Even in a blind test, I know when there isnt bass. But add a bass/sub to them and it might be a different story.
No I wouldnt like them. I have already been down that road. I have a pretty accurate speaker (the new Quad ESL) and it is better in most everyway -EXCEPT in the missing bass and dynamic range. I am never happy with missing bass systems. Even in a blind test, I know when there isnt bass. But add a bass/sub to them and it might be a different story.
Last edited:
Tried any of the specialist subwoofers for ESL63?
Where/when did you test this proposition?
I won't comment on the height stuff but real life localisation is a lot worse in anechoic conditions. Loadsa documented tests on this. Try Blauert or the BBC Engineering Reports. I found this myself when testing stereo localisation.
If you get a chance to spend time in an Imax auditorium, the spec for the theatre is 'nearly' anechoic. I think you will find localisation weird and distance cues almost absent.
PS I've spent a lot of time in anechoic chambers.
Last edited:
Are you doubting that one can tell when bass is missing? Really? From music heard on both small and large systems -with and without extended bass? Say, direct recording from 5 string bass guitar? Is this a trick question?
I was more disturbed by the silence, than other things. You can ear your blood.., so , we were playing a little radio transistor all the day-long between measurements...
About distance localization, it was more difficult with artificial sources (speakers) than human voices of colleague, like in outdoor condition in a snowy day, if i remember well. ...So long times ago.
We focused our attention on localization as we where studying for an omni-directional enclosure at this time...
We discovered the importance of relative speakers alignments by chance, at this time*, measuring 360° around the enclosure: loudspeakers for medium and treble where at the top of the enclosure.
kgrlee, sorry for your audio files, can't listen them, i have only stereo systems, at home.
* Late 60s or early 70s.
About front/back & top/bottom localization, according to IRCAM*, our ears use both group delay in high trebles and response curve to localize. Our ears are very directional and not linear at all: typical response curves depending on the source's position. Localization is more precise with moving and known sources.
Each of our brains is tuned to analyses it differently depending of the form of our head and body. So, listening to earphones, you can tune the tool according to some measurements of your head for best results.
If the source is not moving, our brain order reflex movements to our head when asked to localize, like our eyes are moving. When you hear some unattended noise, you turn your head in its direction and your brain localize *during* this movement...
They realized, by example, an earphone (one transducer by ear) with inertia captors and they simulate a precise source position in space, witch stay in the same virtual absolute position, whatever you move your head. Or simulate an object moving in a volume.
Lot of amazing things...
*IRCAM is some kind of governmental department of research, and their work involved multidisciplinary competencies, including psycho-acoutic. They realized a lot of virtual realities acoustic demonstrations, using earphones or outdoor loudspeakers arrays, varying front waves diameters, playing with absolute delays, group delays, and response curves to simulate distances, space localization and to create various virtual environments like walls etc...
They have a lot of equipment, including big anechoic chambers.
Each of our brains is tuned to analyses it differently depending of the form of our head and body. So, listening to earphones, you can tune the tool according to some measurements of your head for best results.
If the source is not moving, our brain order reflex movements to our head when asked to localize, like our eyes are moving. When you hear some unattended noise, you turn your head in its direction and your brain localize *during* this movement...
They realized, by example, an earphone (one transducer by ear) with inertia captors and they simulate a precise source position in space, witch stay in the same virtual absolute position, whatever you move your head. Or simulate an object moving in a volume.
Lot of amazing things...
*IRCAM is some kind of governmental department of research, and their work involved multidisciplinary competencies, including psycho-acoutic. They realized a lot of virtual realities acoustic demonstrations, using earphones or outdoor loudspeakers arrays, varying front waves diameters, playing with absolute delays, group delays, and response curves to simulate distances, space localization and to create various virtual environments like walls etc...
They have a lot of equipment, including big anechoic chambers.
Last edited:
Progress in hi end audio design is still going forward. Unfortunately, the AES is not as much help in this area, as it was, decades earlier in the past, but there are still a few papers, here and there, that are worthwhile to read and ponder.
There is better, more affordable audio oriented test equipment becoming available, that should be both more sophisticated and easier to use than normal computer adapted to measuring distortion OR much of the traditional test equipment usually used in audio labs, up to this time.
However, these test systems will NOT really teach us EVERYTHING about what we need for better audio design, until they add FM distortion to their features, and perhaps Hirata distortion as well, and hopefully we will find even more distortion mechanisms that our ears are often designed to detect, yet we have no measurement for them, as of yet.
There is better, more affordable audio oriented test equipment becoming available, that should be both more sophisticated and easier to use than normal computer adapted to measuring distortion OR much of the traditional test equipment usually used in audio labs, up to this time.
However, these test systems will NOT really teach us EVERYTHING about what we need for better audio design, until they add FM distortion to their features, and perhaps Hirata distortion as well, and hopefully we will find even more distortion mechanisms that our ears are often designed to detect, yet we have no measurement for them, as of yet.
curious minds???
I have seen a copy of Ron's paper. It makes sense now, a nice academic overview of everything that's been done. Tables of results make sense op-amps with <1.5 V/us slewrate are not good for audio. There are several tables of amplifiers that didn't register, I'm happy enough with that
It better not be or you, Nelson, and Chales Hansen are in trouble!
Please read the results, even the lowly AD712 does't register. AD797 UNDEGENERATED bi-polar, no reading, no PIM, no TIM, results even from your side. Don't get me wrong a 50 cent op-amp might be 5 orders of magnitudes DIFFERENT than a ZEN amp, I think the door is open now to find one of those euphonic colorations that causes preference. We might want add lots of PIM for the right sound after all most mechanical forms of recording are packed with it..
About spacial mixes, i was quite interested in that, at the time we build the first Dolby surround post prod studio for TV in Paris.
Made some quick'n dirty experiments to try to produce better space acoustic landscape for movies.
By example, i had recorded voice of a comedian at different distances outdoor, and build a 'magic box' with a 'distance button' varying response curves according to the envelopes recorded.
For indoor dubbing, i used two mikes one close, another at the end of the room, the closed one with a delay for they both arrive at the same time. It was possible to mix them and create various distances effects following image...
I tried some modest experiments with delays between middle loudspeaker and side ones to vary the front wave curve and increase distance perception...
It was working not so bad on separated tracks mixes, but no way with the stupid Dolby processing...
Too, i experimented four track/mikes ambiophonic recordings for ambiances, same results, same reasons.
I tried at this time a studio localization effect box, build by IRCAM, for vertical position and front to back movements (planes, by examples), same results, same reasons.
(I hated this poor Dolby coding 4 to 2 system !)
Most of it remained purely experimental, of course.
The profession is so stupid that in your daily work, you spend all your time to clean and correct bad direct recording done with ties hf microphones, or manage 24 different ambiance tracks for each scene because no decision had been taken during editing, and everybody opens his umbrella...
And near nobody cares to improve or innovate anything while the production process is rigid, schizophrenic and cannot be changed...
Result ? Quasi mono productions, just stereo ambiances with, some time to time an effect roughly positioned right left or back, just enough to allow producers to make believe they sell a 'Surround' soundtrack. Money, money (time is money).
Made some quick'n dirty experiments to try to produce better space acoustic landscape for movies.
By example, i had recorded voice of a comedian at different distances outdoor, and build a 'magic box' with a 'distance button' varying response curves according to the envelopes recorded.
For indoor dubbing, i used two mikes one close, another at the end of the room, the closed one with a delay for they both arrive at the same time. It was possible to mix them and create various distances effects following image...
I tried some modest experiments with delays between middle loudspeaker and side ones to vary the front wave curve and increase distance perception...
It was working not so bad on separated tracks mixes, but no way with the stupid Dolby processing...
Too, i experimented four track/mikes ambiophonic recordings for ambiances, same results, same reasons.
I tried at this time a studio localization effect box, build by IRCAM, for vertical position and front to back movements (planes, by examples), same results, same reasons.
(I hated this poor Dolby coding 4 to 2 system !)
Most of it remained purely experimental, of course.
The profession is so stupid that in your daily work, you spend all your time to clean and correct bad direct recording done with ties hf microphones, or manage 24 different ambiance tracks for each scene because no decision had been taken during editing, and everybody opens his umbrella...
And near nobody cares to improve or innovate anything while the production process is rigid, schizophrenic and cannot be changed...
Result ? Quasi mono productions, just stereo ambiances with, some time to time an effect roughly positioned right left or back, just enough to allow producers to make believe they sell a 'Surround' soundtrack. Money, money (time is money).
Sorry for that. i am not able to understand what is the subject of those > 1000 page's thread supposed to be about Blowtorth preamplifier.
Cars ? Your travels, friends and life ? G.D. PA system ? Or general and informal thoughts about sound reproduction and electronic ?
I believed that, talking about acoustic or production is an inherent part of Hifi reproduction.
Sorry if i was out of topic and bored you.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.