john curl said:
I just wish we can get better recordings also, the really good ones are quite rare.
Andre Visser said:
Literature is not clear in this point wrt to "normal listening" (i.e. listen to music).
The researchers found it to be audible with special test signals (and sometimes special room acoustics) but got diverging results with normal music in normal listening rooms.
Look for papers from Lipshitz/Vanderkoy and Greiner/Melton.
Reasons for audibility are afaik still debatable; assumptions relied on asymmetrical behavior of inner ear and/or loudspeakers . 🙂
john curl said:
Yes, I will probably end up on the wrong side of the literature again. 😀
As said when the phase is changed digitally I hear little or no difference but changing it at the speakers is a different story, sounds like I have some homework to do.
Andre Visser said:
Yes. Not night and day, but audible. Especially audible with transducers that have high second harmonic and the right test signal.
Jakob2 said:
Thanks Jakob, I believe it wil depend on what instruments you listen to, those that create symmetrical waves will surely make no difference.
Andre Visser said:
Hi Andre
Hope you will share the results with the rest of us.
Cheers
Stinius
It also depends on the asymmetry of the sources. Some sources bring it out, easily. An associate of mine found flamenco music brought it out fairly easily, for some reason.
I would really appreciate to have a possibility to make a listening test with Blowtorch. I had the opportunity to make it with Halo JC-2. It is very good, but not extraordinary. It is really possible to get very similar results, and for some even better. I guess that the BT might be a legend. Few pieces, almost no one knows it. The legend should remain a legend, sometimes it is better when we do not realize our dreams. There is a lot of excellent audio products, and I am sure that the Blowtorch is not any deadline in audio development.
john curl said:
So I guess we can say equipment with high 2nd harmonics will have a larger effect on absolute phase?
SY is right about objective testing. It just so happens, much to everyone's relief that Dr. Lipshitz has heard the polarity effect, and went testing for it, years ago.
Andre Visser said:
Yes. And it depends on what do we subconsciously expect from sound of the certain instrument. If a horn "pushes", it sounds natural. If it "pulls", it is not.
SY said:
And amps, as well. The lower frequencies they can pass to speakers, the easier polarity is recognizable.
janneman said:
Jan,
In Daniel J. Levitin's book This Is Your Brain On Music, he states "the brain is so attuned to the overtone series" that if we hear a sound that has all the "components of the excecpt the fundamental" then the brain fills in the fundamental for us. It's called "restoration of the missing fundamental." So all we here is the missing fundamental.
Bear,
I was looking up pitch in Daniel J. Levitin's book and he says that pitch is a "purely phycological construct." By that he said, it's purely in our head, brain and sounds in nature don't know pitch. Sort of intrinsic to our brain, and even people without training can detect when musicians are off key. So, I agree with you about perfect pitch.
I do know that the electrical signals of the brain have the same harmonic structure as music. And some sounds are just more naturally more pleasant than others. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that some people with perfect pitch find it a curse, and can't stand players being slightly off pitch. That indicates, actually it is, increased sensitivity to pitch. Maybe some people with perfect pitch don't have that problem? Increased sensitivity doesn't have to be unpleasant, depends on the person. But some people probably just have increased sensitivity to pitch. IMO
I hope you find this a more educated response than my last one. 😉 Like I said, I'm not a musician. Kind of wish I had been more interested in playing an instrument when I was younger though.
I found the information in Chapter 1 "What is Music?" of Daniel's book. It's a really good book.
While I think that Levitin's book is OK, I don't see how it will actually help us further appreciate audio reproduction, or help us make better audio.
This is true of a lot of audio research, which is academically interesting, but can actually limit ones ability to reach for 'more'.
Let me give an example that lasted over 100 years and allegedly drove Paul Klipsch down the wrong path.
This was 'Ohm's Law of Acoustics' that stated that the ear is monaurally phase deaf, and that keeping waveforms 'time aligned' or some such was a waste of time. This lead to many, many speaker designs that had significantly offset drivers and all other extra time delays. It was considered impossible to detect.
Does everyone here think that is so, today?
This is true of a lot of audio research, which is academically interesting, but can actually limit ones ability to reach for 'more'.
Let me give an example that lasted over 100 years and allegedly drove Paul Klipsch down the wrong path.
This was 'Ohm's Law of Acoustics' that stated that the ear is monaurally phase deaf, and that keeping waveforms 'time aligned' or some such was a waste of time. This lead to many, many speaker designs that had significantly offset drivers and all other extra time delays. It was considered impossible to detect.
Does everyone here think that is so, today?
john curl said:
I get your good point.
The strive to find new and better is character of a real open mind.
The fact that some explorations end up in 'dead alley' should not stop creative human thinking.
There are more out there, than we know.
Once we know all -- we never need to create them Gods.
And may 'your god go with you'.
as he said ....
Music: Thin Lizzy - Fools Gold .. and: Don't Believe a Word http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzpMBscDNbM
.. let's keep on searching
🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.