Yes........BUT you then need a filter with the following freq and (minimum) phase response (see attached plot).Esperado said:
And the problem a decade below the resonant frequency is obvious, +40dB gain at c 1Hz......just don't slam the door !
(Reposted, including the attachment this time )
Attachments
Last edited:
It is 20 usec
The JND in detection of delays between binaural or mono signals is on the order of 20 micro-seconds.
see --> View attachment spatial hearing.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
The JND in detection of delays between binaural or mono signals is on the order of 20 micro-seconds.
see --> View attachment spatial hearing.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
If I process a signal to play tomorrow, causality in the extremely literal sense can not be violated, but it has to be clear by now how unnatural the results of linear phase filters can be.
Yes Barleywater, but FIR produces artifacts, just like min. phase filtering, it is pre-ringing or phase shift, choose your poison. Comes with the packages.
Come on guys there are minimum phase digital filters with no non-causal artifacts.
Thanks Scott,
From watching that video the other day with the drum effects I thought that even the minimum phase filters had some of these effects.
From watching that video the other day with the drum effects I thought that even the minimum phase filters had some of these effects.
Yes. They're kept beneath the counter, be sure to ask. Actually, there are more and more these days, but it matters to be specific and order the right one.
I'll admit that all I have read of filters was done in the analog domain so I have no reference for what happens in the digital domain.
I don't understand Scott's reaction, but this is correct. There is no such filter. I know phase shift usually is innocuous, and now I want to get hands on experience with pre-ringing filters.
Reduce reflections -
If you want to hear anything remotely accurate to the source, you need to be in the direct and not reverberant sound field; You can do this by siting closer, deadening the early reflections and/or a more directional source or headphones. Phase or GD and many other things are obliterated by a lot of reflections.
View attachment GD and reverb.pdf
View attachment Phase and GD.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
If you want to hear anything remotely accurate to the source, you need to be in the direct and not reverberant sound field; You can do this by siting closer, deadening the early reflections and/or a more directional source or headphones. Phase or GD and many other things are obliterated by a lot of reflections.
View attachment GD and reverb.pdf
View attachment Phase and GD.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
Richard,
At the same time all those things are the norm, we are use to listening in reverberant situations. The only unnatural thing are the headphones, that is never correct, it just is far from a natural hearing environment.
At the same time all those things are the norm, we are use to listening in reverberant situations. The only unnatural thing are the headphones, that is never correct, it just is far from a natural hearing environment.
That may be true for you.... but it is not true for me. I have followed the LEDE and similar practices for decades. I do not sit in the reverb field. You can measure where it begins in the room. Remember, I am only interested in getting the best results....Hi-End... not the typical... speakers at one end of the room and listener at the other end for a listening arrangement.
If you look at S.Linkwitz listening room.... a very reverb room (glass walls on both sides etc) and he sits in the middle.... thus he needs a more directional speaker to receive clarity to the source.
I attached a couple pages about how reverb affects the sound rel to phase and GD. Pls read. Or better, buy the book and read all of it.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
There is a certain ring to this thread
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/269776-filter-brewing-soekris-r2r.html
//
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/269776-filter-brewing-soekris-r2r.html
//
Richard,
If as it appears you are attempting to reproduce a recording studios acoustics that is fine with me, most people don't have that option. At the same time you would need to use a soffit mounted system to truly get that right if you are attempting to reproduce what an engineer in a studio was listening to.
My point was on the headphones, I don't care what you have, they are never going to be correct for playback, never going to happen with one ear isolated from the other. I don't want to hear about bin-aural recordings, not enough to even consider that option.
If as it appears you are attempting to reproduce a recording studios acoustics that is fine with me, most people don't have that option. At the same time you would need to use a soffit mounted system to truly get that right if you are attempting to reproduce what an engineer in a studio was listening to.
My point was on the headphones, I don't care what you have, they are never going to be correct for playback, never going to happen with one ear isolated from the other. I don't want to hear about bin-aural recordings, not enough to even consider that option.
My experience is that if you get the quality of the sound being output by the drivers sufficiently good, as in, low enough in certain sorts of artifacts, then all this sort of carry on is unnecessary. I've had systems working in the worst sort of rooms, totally wrong from the usual perspective - and it doesn't make the slightest difference to the perceived quality. Reason is, that the ear/brain has enough good information being fed to it to properly decode what's going on - and 'convincing' sound is automatically switched on, inside the brain, without you having to do anything special to cause that switch to flick over.
Clarity to what's happening inside the reproduced event is part of that package, it's just there, all the time, irrespective of how you concentrate, or don't; and where you are in the listening environment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.