graaf thanks.
Maybe it is precisely because it naturally goofs, its easier to artificially fool it?
Maybe it is precisely because it naturally goofs, its easier to artificially fool it?
Hello,
Linkwitz's comments on Toole's book are quite interesting
Quote:"It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process."
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprodu...0192118?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224067161&sr=1-1
This seems to indicate that Toole's approach to the problem was not optimal and maybe too limited even that generally applicaple conclusion could be drawn from it.
- Elias
Linkwitz's comments on Toole's book are quite interesting
Quote:"It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process."
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprodu...0192118?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224067161&sr=1-1
This seems to indicate that Toole's approach to the problem was not optimal and maybe too limited even that generally applicaple conclusion could be drawn from it.
- Elias
salas said:
you are welcome 🙂
and yes - I think that it might be the case, Your hypothesis seems to be very plausible, very strong from logical point of view
best regards!
graaf
Elias said:
yes indeed
his research seem not to cover the cases of most interesting and promising loudspeakers setups, fundamentally different from conventional front firing box, like dipole, omni, Dr Geddes' CD speakers, not to mention more exotic things like line sources in Beveridge setup or conventional box speakers in Stereolith setup
it is understandable as Dr Toole is in business of selling conventional boxes and his main research agenda is how to make THEM play the music best in a typical customer listening environment
best = resulting in highest consumer satisfaction (hence "listeners' preference" as main measure of quality)
perhaps generally applicable conclusions could be drawn from his research but perhaps not?
is the question of spatial cues working in case of PHANTOM stereo sound sources in small reverberant space (as case different from REAL sound source localization) discussed as such in the book?
if not it is a pity because it is fundamental question
I certainly don't want anybody to summarize 500-pages book here 🙂
I just hope that the above simple question can be answered without such summarizing 🙂
best!
graaf
markus76 said:
markus76 said:
Does anyone have acces to the above AES papers or German sources?
Do those paper cover that specific problem of:
spatial cues working in case of PHANTOM stereo sound sources in small reverberant space as opposed to REAL sound sources localization ?
Is it really impossible to summarize in short what spatial cues are working?
best regards!
graaf
Thanks Graaf – now we finally got somewhere – both in terms of bias in science as well as that basic conditions / setup (and I would second Salas with his *entire audio chain to contribute in this* anytime) predicts results – especially electronics behaviour isn't any insignificant when it comes to "spaciousness" (used as layman's term)
One who has difficulties to spot that - in his own subjective perception - isn't exactly predestined for the subject IMO.
-----------------
Something else I would like to throw into this discussion is what I came across, not knowing how to interpret in terms of psychoacoustic relevance.
Doing some more simus to compare monopole and dipol behaviour in rooms it is obvious that the wave front SPL from a monopole degrades faster than from a dipole.
Difference was about 15dB for 100ms *and* almost unaffected by room treatment.
Anybody who can attest / disprove that and / or explain the possible benefits / drawbacks.
Unfortunately it does not show up this way in Elias simus back in #416 - #418
Michael
One who has difficulties to spot that - in his own subjective perception - isn't exactly predestined for the subject IMO.
-----------------
Something else I would like to throw into this discussion is what I came across, not knowing how to interpret in terms of psychoacoustic relevance.
Doing some more simus to compare monopole and dipol behaviour in rooms it is obvious that the wave front SPL from a monopole degrades faster than from a dipole.
Difference was about 15dB for 100ms *and* almost unaffected by room treatment.
Anybody who can attest / disprove that and / or explain the possible benefits / drawbacks.
Unfortunately it does not show up this way in Elias simus back in #416 - #418
Michael
Elias said:
Lets not go too far here. Toole's work is still the best information that we have even if it can be criticized for its scope - he admits this himself, that there is paltry info about small rooms. But I would say that 90% of what he says is completely valid and unless there is some competing evidence, Toole's results will have to remain as the best that we have.
I know that you would like to discount it all since little of it supports your position.
Hello,
May I ask for a clarification. To spot what? To spot a bias in science or to spot an amplifier from the whole chain, for example?
How it can degrade at different rate?
If you think of lets say 10th room reflection, it will arrive at the same time independent of source directivity. But the maximum amplitude of the randomly selected reflection is also the same regardless of source directivity and this is when the main axis of the image of the directional source is towards the listener. Of course average amplitude of reflections at the given time frame is much lower level if source has any directivity.
That's why you can see monopole having very small amplitude deviation of impulse response amplitude, whereas dipole and cardioid the deviation is huge.
If you are talking about degrading the _quality_ of the wavefront, then you are correct, monopole wavefront loses it's quality fastest.
- Elias
mige0 said:
May I ask for a clarification. To spot what? To spot a bias in science or to spot an amplifier from the whole chain, for example?
How it can degrade at different rate?
If you think of lets say 10th room reflection, it will arrive at the same time independent of source directivity. But the maximum amplitude of the randomly selected reflection is also the same regardless of source directivity and this is when the main axis of the image of the directional source is towards the listener. Of course average amplitude of reflections at the given time frame is much lower level if source has any directivity.
That's why you can see monopole having very small amplitude deviation of impulse response amplitude, whereas dipole and cardioid the deviation is huge.
If you are talking about degrading the _quality_ of the wavefront, then you are correct, monopole wavefront loses it's quality fastest.
- Elias
graaf said:
Not sure what you are stating here, but in my set up even the range below 300Hz is contributing *substantially* to my perception of the virtual space I find myself in.
Michael
Elias said:
To spot electronics perception compromising behaviour.
Elias said:
Think of a tube like room - with uniform treatment - the directivity speakers aiming along its long axis. Something like your room for example.
For the monopole the energy radiated to the sides will be reflected - *and* absorbed – several times more often than the energy along the long axis – if we consider a time frame of sound traveling several times the long room axis.
Hence – in such a case - the energy / SPL of a directive speaker keeps up longer – no?
Michael
Elias said:
Seen clearly in CARA simu
😉
Elias said:
Looking at my simu – also at a more extended timeframe – there isn't any quality wave front from monopole at all - unless heavy room treatment is applied
😉
Michael
Hello,
No. Monopole radiation along the long axis will degrade the same rate as directional source pointing along that axis.
Also the side reflections from monopole and directional source will degrade at the same rate.
Just that in this case the side reflections from the directional source will be initially less than monopole, thus monopole reflections at any given time frame will be higher at level than directional source.
- Elias
mige0 said:
No. Monopole radiation along the long axis will degrade the same rate as directional source pointing along that axis.
Also the side reflections from monopole and directional source will degrade at the same rate.
Just that in this case the side reflections from the directional source will be initially less than monopole, thus monopole reflections at any given time frame will be higher at level than directional source.
- Elias
Hello,
Try google or similar. Some of the authors have pdfs at their own home pages.
- Elias
graaf said:
Try google or similar. Some of the authors have pdfs at their own home pages.
- Elias
mige0 said:
Not sure what you are stating here, but in my set up even the range below 300Hz is contributing *substantially* to my perception of the virtual space I find myself in.
Michael [/B][/QUOTE]
It covers the power range for envelopment and the presence range for image focus. It is just that at 1kHz the two perceptional ranges meet. Also there the hearing has difficulty with natural sources. So we try to deduce if there is some coincidence or not that some people feel that the 1kHz area is the strongest clue area for artificial imaging. Of course we would be happy if someone knows a paper that has data for that, or is it just a misunderstanding on our part.
Hello,
I agree low freq range being important for perception of _space_. Griesinger also talks about importance of low freq range around 200Hz-400Hz. You want to have high variation of the ear signals at this freq range thus decorrelated sources and their ability to deliver it through the room at low freqs is needed. Is monopole able?
- Elias
mige0 said:
I agree low freq range being important for perception of _space_. Griesinger also talks about importance of low freq range around 200Hz-400Hz. You want to have high variation of the ear signals at this freq range thus decorrelated sources and their ability to deliver it through the room at low freqs is needed. Is monopole able?
- Elias
- Status
- Not open for further replies.