Frank, I do have systems capable of deafening you without distorting. But I wasn't talking about the speakers distorting, or the ear distorting. I was talking about being able to perceive reverberated sound as an entity by itself when it becomes louder than a certain threshold. It is a sound that is uncorrelated with the music.
Anyway, not important for the discussion we are having, which is about directivity control in the lower frequencies.
Anyway, not important for the discussion we are having, which is about directivity control in the lower frequencies.
I think the real problem here is continuing on with the premise that directivity solely concerns reflections or reflective conditions.
Well, what else does it concern?
Scott,
I would say directivity has a lot to do with the first impulse response that reaches our ears. That could still be a lower than 700hz source before any reflective or secondary source reaches our ears. I have always been under the understanding that anything over about 150hz can be localized outside without a reflective surface, so I am not in the camp that says we can ignore anything below 700hz.
I would say directivity has a lot to do with the first impulse response that reaches our ears. That could still be a lower than 700hz source before any reflective or secondary source reaches our ears. I have always been under the understanding that anything over about 150hz can be localized outside without a reflective surface, so I am not in the camp that says we can ignore anything below 700hz.
Actually it's easy to localize at freq.s lower than 700 Hz. Speak to any baritone (male - hopefully 😱 😀 ), in a small room and see if you can determine his position in that room (..close your eyes 😛 ). The fundamental range can be lower than 150 Hz and still, no problem. Nor is it a question of "harmonics" trailing-up in freq.. Nor is it simply the "onset" - have that person "hum" a sustained low note (..be in room when started, walk out, walk back in again and try to "spot" him with eyes closed, have him move around while humming).
EASY test.. while perhaps not rigorous for scientific validity, it falls under the testing results of "stupid-obvious".
It seems the only one who is proposing that we should ignore directivity below 700hz is Earl. Perhaps this has much to do with his design philosophy as regards to the interaction of horn and direct radiator? Below the directivity of the horn he seems to discount the need to worry about what happens if I am following his answers and logic in previous posts.
PS. If that is indeed his reality wouldn't we just ignore any diffraction around the edge of an enclosure as that would typically be below the 700hz threshold that he is pointing to?
PS. If that is indeed his reality wouldn't we just ignore any diffraction around the edge of an enclosure as that would typically be below the 700hz threshold that he is pointing to?
Okay, I'll back off ... directivity doesn't interest me, whether the sound actually sounds "real" does. If all the "correct" systems I've heard over the years is the way to go then I wish the people who enjoy that approach all the best. Except, I find it tediously boring and uninspired, kitchen radio sound with a bit more guts ...
Frank
Frank
THis is not quite correct: The baritone voice has a formant much higher than fundamental
Formant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...trogram_-iua-.png/250px-Spectrogram_-iua-.png
Formant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...trogram_-iua-.png/250px-Spectrogram_-iua-.png
Actually it's easy to localize at freq.s lower than 700 Hz. Speak to any baritone (male - hopefully😀 ), in a small room and see if you can determine his position in that room (..close your eyes
). The fundamental range can be lower than 150 Hz and still, no problem. Nor is it a question of "harmonics" trailing-up in freq.. Nor is it simply the "onset" - have that person "hum" a sustained low note (..be in room when started, walk out, walk back in again and try to "spot" him with eyes closed, have him move around while humming).
Last edited:
Griesinger on phase and harmonics with respect to to sound localization:
Rough cut off is 700Hz, and this alone tells us that reflections later than 1.4ms have little if any impact on imaging.
Skip all the directivity nonsense.
For sounds with components below 700Hz, it is associated harmonics >700Hz that are used for localization.
Elias, with Pluto Clone I freely turn head and have phantom image remain fixed; no barrier required. I have also described the requirements allowing this: speakers with radiating wavefronts that project back to point.
Rough cut off is 700Hz, and this alone tells us that reflections later than 1.4ms have little if any impact on imaging.
Skip all the directivity nonsense.
For sounds with components below 700Hz, it is associated harmonics >700Hz that are used for localization.
Elias, with Pluto Clone I freely turn head and have phantom image remain fixed; no barrier required. I have also described the requirements allowing this: speakers with radiating wavefronts that project back to point.
Vocal tract is a tube, 6 to 7 in long, so it will have resonances higher than 500 Hz, even humming.
I don't think you can get there from here.....
Last edited:
This is terrible !!
😱
🙄
I find it exactly correspondent to my situation
All my speakers employ a waveguide 😛
Maybe it's the ' mono magic ' ...easy wins over complicated ...
Griesinger: "Sound in the hall is difficult to understand and remember when there is just one speaker. Impossible to understand when two speakers talk at the same time."
I don't think this is because of reflections <1.4ms.
Room modes can change the phase of ear signals at lower frequencies. This certainly doesn't help creating a situation where localization is good even if higher frequency localization cues dominate.
By the way, the Benjamin/Brown paper shows that interaural level differences for a phantom center varies ±2dB. Even when the head is carefully placed. That error is significant.
Differences for a real center is only ±0,5dB.
I suspect the barrier technique helps reducing that error.
Differences for a real center is only ±0,5dB.
I suspect the barrier technique helps reducing that error.
Attachments
Let's wait and see then. There are no audiophiles here, only reasonable people trying to understand. 😉
Room modes have no bearing on the information content of information contained in the first 1.4ms of impulsive attack sounds that generate localization cues.
Room modes don't exist without reflections. Phantom images are not about reflections, and are all about the direct sound.
Clearly Griesinger is describing large rooms in which most listening positions are deeply immersed in reverberant field. He isn't describing ability to localize speaker, he is describing ability to understand speaker.
Correct.
Wrong.
Reflections do change spatial attributes of (phantom) sound sources. They have an impact on localization performance. Not sure why you're in denial about that simple fact. You know the studies by Toole and Olive?
Last edited: