Sorry, evenharmonics, for my poor language. It was a general statement for everyone, not you as a person.
Ed, it says both 1 trace and 1 to 8 ohms.
I see only one squiggly line.
Jn
Perhaps you might need glasses. I see the classic single pole rolloff showing a corner frequency of 30,000 hertzies.
This is better than the commercial cable I thought I showed a peek at before.
For some strange reason I didn't want to unroll the full 1,000 feet.
As to a source impedance of 1 ohm that is actually a decent value, as some folks prewire their racks to external terminal blocks to make installation simpler in their opinion. Also in my systems there may be one thing magical between the amplificator and the loudspeaker cable, as there maybe other issues to deal with.
One of those other issues many folks know about is heterodyne noise from using Class D amplifiers. But what would one expect from amplifiers that barely passed their exams?
Last edited:
Actually, I just need a translator from Edspeak to everybody else. 340' 1ohm to 8 ohm shoulda said 1 ohm source to 8 ohm load..
I can't read your mind. Thank goodness.
Jn
Kinda. It's like bisecting an angle with a compass. A specific ILD traces a hyperbolic curve (or is it ellipse), while a specific ITD traces a specific angle.
The intersection is the location.
Granted, this is an oversimplification.
Anyone who thinks this is difficult, you should see the derivative graphs, you know, the "what if this uncertainty exists", what is the area of possibility..
Posted them on audio asylum maybe 15 years ago, not sure if I can find them again, that was about 4 computers ago. But not as bad as my settling time test results which I STORED FOREVER on....
sigh...5 1/4 floppy disks.
Jn
Last edited:
May-be ;-)
This kind of triangulation need distance between the two captors. I.E. an important angle. Leicas and other rangefinders are only accurate at short distance., while it is the contrary with split focus.
I get the impression it's all clues, or should that be cues?
Yes, you've got it - expecting exactness from auditory perception is just a pipe dream - the signal space that auditory perception has to work with does not have enough information in it to be able to choose a unique solution from all the possible solutions that could give rise to this same signal stream - it's an ill defined problem because of this so auditory perception involves moment by moment best fit analysis of the signals to derive a solution -it's a guessing game which uses all possible help/information to try to solve this problem, including information from other senses
Auditory processing is basically a biological processing machine working on a pretty intractable set of signals
Last edited:
Actually, I just need a translator from Edspeak to everybody else. 340' 1ohm to 8 ohm shoulda said 1 ohm source to 8 ohm load..
I can't read your mind. Thank goodness.
Jn
Not enough space where the AP lets you make notes.
I found it interesting reading about the ear, I've not considered it in much detail before. I was struck by the fact that there are a number of theories about different aspects of it's functioning and plenty of grey areas. One could say it merely provides some clues for the brain to work on? So, when people say there must be something wrong with your ears if you can't hear a difference (or vice versa) they could well be missing the mark by quite a large margin
I found it interesting reading about the ear, I've not considered it in much detail before. I was struck by the fact that there are a number of theories about different aspects of it's functioning and plenty of grey areas. One could say it merely provides some clues for the brain to work on? So, when people say there must be something wrong with your ears if you can't hear a difference (or vice versa) they could well be missing the mark by quite a large margin
Because our senses are second nature to us, we don't often think about how they work. I find it best to analyze it from a signal processing perspective - the pressure waves that hit the ears just result in a serial stream of nerve impulses & yet we create an internal model of sound objects which generally map to real world objects i.e. we analyse the serial stream of nerve impulses in such a way that we can group these dynamically changing signals into sound objects that move through space & time.
If we use an analogy it's maybe easier to understand the problem - consider we are sitting on the side of a swimming pool & we have our two hands in the water - none of our other senses are working - no sight, no hearing, no smell, just touch.
Our hands can sense the waves hitting both of them from people that are moving/swimming, etc in the pool. So our hands are receiving similar signals as our eardrums receive from soundwaves. What our auditory perception is achieving is the equivalent of being able to know all the objects in the pool, what sizes they are, where they are in the pool, how they are moving & their trajectory & more - all in real time.
As you can see the signals arriving at the hands need a helluva lot of processing to be able to achieve this & it requires a knowledge base built up from experience of how objects behave in the real world in this medium (in this case water). This gets us some of the way towards making our guesses more informed & accurate but we still often need to co-opt other sources of information (from other senses) to resolve this dilemma constantly faced by auditory perception. And we can easily upset this very precarious system - illusions are some of the times when we do get it wrong
Last edited:
They are both readable... you can zoom, cant you?
Its the shape of the Z curve and not any other matter. The part where the Z flattens out is above audio and it is called the Characteristic Z of the cable/line.
Below about 100KHz, the Z is not constant and we cannot apply characteristic Z to the subject of cable interfacing issues.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I found it interesting reading about the ear, I've not considered it in much detail before. I was struck by the fact that there are a number of theories about different aspects of it's functioning and plenty of grey areas. One could say it merely provides some clues for the brain to work on? So, when people say there must be something wrong with your ears if you can't hear a difference (or vice versa) they could well be missing the mark by quite a large margin
I hear things in music reproduction that people tell me I’m not supposed to be able to hear, I catch a lot of flack for it on forums like this.
A lot of it’s a trained ear thing.....some just seems to be a natural ability.
My audio ‘memory’ is also quite good ..... I’m told that’s uncommon also.
But when the system is dialed with the eyes shut I can sometimes ‘see’ my own version of the band or even transported to concert like it was yesterday....but really was 20 yrs ago.
If you think about how much processing power we actually have our ears and brain are worth some consideration!
Bob
Last edited:
Richard, I can read your graphs.
When it comes to hearing differences, each of us appears to have different abilities. The theory changes over the years too, so I just rely on what I am pretty sure that I am hearing, especially without drug or alcohol enhancement. I can be a serious listener, not just somebody who wants to hear some music. For the rest of you, it is your choice, according to your ability. I think discrimination in the sound of musical instruments as well as hi fi reproduction is both an innate and learned skill. Experience helps, but some can still discriminate better than others, even if both have equal experience. That is just the way it is.
Good for you, mountain bob, I am sure you get 'flack' just like I do, but the sound quality is what it is, no argument is going to fix it.
When it comes to hearing differences, each of us appears to have different abilities. The theory changes over the years too, so I just rely on what I am pretty sure that I am hearing, especially without drug or alcohol enhancement. I can be a serious listener, not just somebody who wants to hear some music. For the rest of you, it is your choice, according to your ability. I think discrimination in the sound of musical instruments as well as hi fi reproduction is both an innate and learned skill. Experience helps, but some can still discriminate better than others, even if both have equal experience. That is just the way it is.
Good for you, mountain bob, I am sure you get 'flack' just like I do, but the sound quality is what it is, no argument is going to fix it.
Another factor perhaps not realised that I find true is that bad sound systems even slightly bad can cause 'shut down' of hearing acuity.
This also applies because of exposure to occupational 'industrial' sounds, automotive sounds and HVAC systems.
These occupational categories can be extremely loud especially in low/sub frequencies and typical exposure is significant, ie the typical supermarket/shopping center/office workplace is loud, really loud.
My exposure to harsh sounds is essentially nil and I am constantly exposed to 'nature' sounds....the local climate allows doors and windows open year round and the suburb/area is very quiet.
I have found that parallel to improvements in my sound systems, my hearing has also improved as my hearing has restored.
This I find is a positive feedback process and through experiment and associated training I am nowadays able to distinguish sounds like gold or silver etc in my system easily and reliably.
Another factor IMHO is 'perfect pitch', and this can be innate and then reinforced by exposure/training to musical instrument sounds....ie hearing real instrument sounds (as opposed to electric guitar etc) - I grew up with regular listening to a 1670's Jacobus Steiner Lionhead violin in the home, interestingly Steiner was Bach's and Mozart's choice in violins.
Those who question (and ridicule) the hearing abilities of others might like to consider the above and it might be that such criticisers hearing is actually defective or is untrained.
Dan.
This also applies because of exposure to occupational 'industrial' sounds, automotive sounds and HVAC systems.
These occupational categories can be extremely loud especially in low/sub frequencies and typical exposure is significant, ie the typical supermarket/shopping center/office workplace is loud, really loud.
My exposure to harsh sounds is essentially nil and I am constantly exposed to 'nature' sounds....the local climate allows doors and windows open year round and the suburb/area is very quiet.
I have found that parallel to improvements in my sound systems, my hearing has also improved as my hearing has restored.
This I find is a positive feedback process and through experiment and associated training I am nowadays able to distinguish sounds like gold or silver etc in my system easily and reliably.
Another factor IMHO is 'perfect pitch', and this can be innate and then reinforced by exposure/training to musical instrument sounds....ie hearing real instrument sounds (as opposed to electric guitar etc) - I grew up with regular listening to a 1670's Jacobus Steiner Lionhead violin in the home, interestingly Steiner was Bach's and Mozart's choice in violins.
Those who question (and ridicule) the hearing abilities of others might like to consider the above and it might be that such criticisers hearing is actually defective or is untrained.
Dan.
My understanding from what I've read so far about ITD is, as I said, that it is a measure of the difference between arrival time to the two ears of the sound which aids localisation, not that it is something that happens with a continuous tone. The link I posted earlier shows that as the duration of a single tone increases the ability to localise it from the ITD decreases
Last edited:
Correct.
Re ITD, what does clocking jittering do to LR timing....ie phantom mono centre image.
IME better clocking gives more precise centre apparent sound source and better side sources too.
When the clocking gets really good depth information is laid bare also and sound sources 'appear' in '3D space' into the room and from behind the speakers which effectively disappear, eyes closed or open.
So timing scatter which should theoretically not matter with modern dac/processors does matter and enough so to be problem in that the spectrum of the system jitter is undefined causing undefined fine signature in output.
I take it ITD sensitivity fits in with these observations ?.
Dan.
Did I miss something in the link? They are referring to timing differences in ms, not the couple of microseconds JN is referring?
Not according to the stuff JN linked... That was much smaller, 1-2uS.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.