George, you can't honestly say that I haven't argued with you about these points. It's obvious that you WANT to believe it, so be it, but please don't allude to a claim that because no one will argue with you about it, then it must be true! I'll tell you straight out, its not true, and that its your responsibility to prove such an outlandish claim correct, not others to prove it wrong. So why would anyone "put any effort to see if they come up with the similar findings"? This has been looked at many times and in controlled tests "mostly" came up false. Your the only one who seems to believe it. What does that tell you?
And there is CSD data to compare how the system performs in this regard? I don't think such tests even documented system performance. None that I have seen. But I have an open mind for any data that can be presented.
I can show you at what CSD performance I started to hear the differences if you will provide the CSD data of the speaker used to conduct the test you talk about. Not earphones. I can also show you the CSD where I could not here the difference.
I can show you at what CSD performance I started to hear the differences if you will provide the CSD data of the speaker used to conduct the test you talk about. Not earphones. I can also show you the CSD where I could not here the difference.
Last edited:
For soongsc link this may help:
Google Translate
Also please note the book "The Wood Effect" about phase and there was an article something like "What is all this fuss about plus?" in AES I think.
Google Translate
Also please note the book "The Wood Effect" about phase and there was an article something like "What is all this fuss about plus?" in AES I think.
George
I still don't think that you understand that all of the circumstantial evidence that you are quoting is beside the point. What you claim to hear in uncontrolled, unblinded tests is not something that I am going to accept as valid data. And once again, the burdon of proof is on you not me.
I still don't think that you understand that all of the circumstantial evidence that you are quoting is beside the point. What you claim to hear in uncontrolled, unblinded tests is not something that I am going to accept as valid data. And once again, the burdon of proof is on you not me.
Earl,
I am simply sharing my findings. I have no intention to convince anyone. I can just say the people that are not have the passion for anything more generally cannot find anything more. As I mentioned, if you can provide the CSD data of the controlled test you talk about, I will provide mine as well. Those whom cannot hear the different save lots of money, this I can say.😉
Give me any report, and there is a 90% chance I can show how full of holes it is. Just too many issues unaddressed in report like those listening tests.
I am simply sharing my findings. I have no intention to convince anyone. I can just say the people that are not have the passion for anything more generally cannot find anything more. As I mentioned, if you can provide the CSD data of the controlled test you talk about, I will provide mine as well. Those whom cannot hear the different save lots of money, this I can say.😉
Give me any report, and there is a 90% chance I can show how full of holes it is. Just too many issues unaddressed in report like those listening tests.
Last edited:
Earl -your post here is so fundamentally wrong I don't know where to begin.. (..but because I find it so irritating I'll give it a "go".) 😉
1. Yes, you've argued it with him before.. why do it again? Everyone has the capability to do a search on the subject.. courtesy might even suggest posting a link to the previous argument. 😉
2. It isn't what he "wants" to believe, rather it's what he currently believes. (..big difference.)
3. He isn't alluding to a claim. He is stating flat-out that there is a link between linear decay and an acute listener's ability to detect changes in absolute polarity.
4. He isn't asking for anyone to argue about anything, or even test anything.
5. The argument that previous testing on the subject was flawed (again with respect to improved levels of linear decay and acute listeners), is NOT being offered as proof that individuals can detect changes in absolute polarity. Rather it's being provided to disqualify claims that attempt to prove that individuals can NOT detect changes in absolute polarity. (..again, big difference.)
6. Your statement that both his personal perception and that of all others cannot detect absolute polarity - is grotesque. How the hell would you know? Have you tested George? Have you tested everyone on the planet? Any absolute statement with respect to an individual's perception is just asking for trouble, and frankly it's easy to "dodge" this particular bullet by appropriately limiting the scope of the statement.
7. Going on to tell him what his responsibility is? EXCUSE ME? WTF? Who died and made you God? Said differently: if I ever *tell* ("command"), you what your responsibility is, or what you can (or cannot do) - please, give me the "single-digit send-off". Like #6 above, it's also easy to "dodge" this particular problem as well - phrasing it as a suggestion, or report on specific problems and provide potential solutions, etc..
8. "Why would anyone "put any effort to see if they come up with the similar findings"?" Umm, curiosity? A pursuit of interest? A thesis paper? A paper to try and get grant money? (..yeah, long-shot there.) Perhaps because others have? Perhaps because there are discrepancies in others work? ..or as George has suggested, perhaps because previous work done on the subject was insufficient?
9. Is George the only one who seems to believe that you can detect changes in absolute polarity? I find that *very* hard to believe.. and using it for support for the rest of your post?
Pitiful!If this post was to "brusque" - then too bad. I'm tired of seeing posts like this from you Earl. I keep hoping you will "clue-up", so I won't feel the need to respond, and particularly not as acerbically as this.
I tend to agree with ScottG on this one and hope the post sticks and is not removed by a moderator. I see no insult in this post- only statements of facts and some opinion on absolutist positions as often taken by certain persons' post.
Many have found absolute phase to be important. I have used absolute phase as an evaluation tool for loudspeakers whereas audibility of absolute phase was the test for even order distortions correlations. This has proved both useful and valid in system testing.
The "translated" from Chinese post made sense to me at the end and is exactly what I have found in my testing with various groups of audiophiles. Wrong phase causes sound image to appear far away.
As a matter of fact in PA work if the mains and monitors are all in phase (we always go for plus) then everything is fine. Switch the phase on any single stage monitor and so many complain that the backward monitor must be found and corrected. This is not absolute phase but relative phase of a lone stage monitor being out of phase with the rest of the system.
My earlier post...smooth phase response and preferably keeping everything in a single (positive) phase is the most important aspect of a system. All things pale in comparison. Others disagree and that is fine however, this is what we build our install around conceptually. The users say over and over "clearest cleanest sound I have ever heard." Now that is very subjective but it is also very satisfying and is representative of the thousands who have used these PA systems. These are results of real world experience and not laboratory test for PA work. Just figured out how to do this effectively a few years ago so the method has not been widely distributed....yet.
Let us keep in mind no one has all the right answers and absolutist positions are for closed minded people shouting my perspective is the only valid perspective.
I really want to learn what others have found important and how they came to their conclusions and what methods they have used whether or not those methods and test are approved by the ivory tower league. Frankly, my ivory tower league experiences have been very bad finding closed minded people who seek power over people and not enlightenment and earthly knowledge. "Those who can do. Those who cannot write papers and teach." So true in my experience. If I disagree I ask questions of why this is so important and attempt understanding. This is called learning.
BE KIND!
=SUM
Many have found absolute phase to be important. I have used absolute phase as an evaluation tool for loudspeakers whereas audibility of absolute phase was the test for even order distortions correlations. This has proved both useful and valid in system testing.
The "translated" from Chinese post made sense to me at the end and is exactly what I have found in my testing with various groups of audiophiles. Wrong phase causes sound image to appear far away.
As a matter of fact in PA work if the mains and monitors are all in phase (we always go for plus) then everything is fine. Switch the phase on any single stage monitor and so many complain that the backward monitor must be found and corrected. This is not absolute phase but relative phase of a lone stage monitor being out of phase with the rest of the system.
My earlier post...smooth phase response and preferably keeping everything in a single (positive) phase is the most important aspect of a system. All things pale in comparison. Others disagree and that is fine however, this is what we build our install around conceptually. The users say over and over "clearest cleanest sound I have ever heard." Now that is very subjective but it is also very satisfying and is representative of the thousands who have used these PA systems. These are results of real world experience and not laboratory test for PA work. Just figured out how to do this effectively a few years ago so the method has not been widely distributed....yet.
Let us keep in mind no one has all the right answers and absolutist positions are for closed minded people shouting my perspective is the only valid perspective.
I really want to learn what others have found important and how they came to their conclusions and what methods they have used whether or not those methods and test are approved by the ivory tower league. Frankly, my ivory tower league experiences have been very bad finding closed minded people who seek power over people and not enlightenment and earthly knowledge. "Those who can do. Those who cannot write papers and teach." So true in my experience. If I disagree I ask questions of why this is so important and attempt understanding. This is called learning.
BE KIND!
=SUM
Sometimes there is some childness in all of us. Remember when I was a kid and we played the game of "tag"? You're it. One thing I've gradually discovered is that some talk we have among guys sound nice and fun when talking face to face also seeing the facial expression, when you take away the facial expression, that kind of talk can sound offending when it really might just be the way people are used to talking. I hope we don't get too negatively emotional over how people express themselves.
Quite some years ago, a Hong Kong magazine had an article on absolute polarity. The author went through his collection of a few thousand CDs and sorted out the recording polarity trends of many brands, and here is what the author came up with based on his system:
With some individual CDs being exceptions to this chart, I find my system presents similar trend.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
With some individual CDs being exceptions to this chart, I find my system presents similar trend.
As a comparison in how we express the difference we hear, what I hear is that the instruments are more focused, with pianos, the strike of the keys seem more clean and crisp, the drum has more punch, cymbals sound more crisp with the trailing timbre more convincingly tailing the strike, the hall reflections in the original recording seems to have more distinction from the performer.
True, which is why we have emoticons for the forum. 🙂 (..and there are plenty of other ways to express it in writing as well.)
Barring that, there are also other means of communication to use - like private mails for communication that might be "iffy".
Of course none of the above was used, and I don't think post I objected to was intended to be cordial banter. 😉
I "craft" words for a living. The post I objected was rather well designed as an inversion of your intent, stripping it of context from your post and generally disrespecting your opinion and any others with similar opinions. (..even going so far as to assume authority over you to bolster that position.) It probably would have been a lot more cordial to have stated "your full of sh..".
I may not agree with your opinion on absolute polarity, but I won't deride you for having it and expressing it. (..actually my opinion is that most of the over-cooked music I listen to is so FURBAR'ed that at least for me the topic appears moot.) 😀
I do however share the context of your post that was maligned:
"..look through the measurements, try to find things that have potential for improvement, do the improvement to verify that it's as expected, and listen to see if there is an audible improvement that brings that emotion into listening experience."
Last edited:
Dr Geddes' post was #734.
No one up to the challenge? That what that was meant to be--a challenge to all who don't believe that the polar response is the most important metric in speaker design. Show something to the contrary. I'm open minded and trying to learn.
Soongsc, I'll agree that CSD should be of some importance (not yet determined as far as I've found), but why ignore polar response? Doesn't it seem to be the most basic measurement for determining what will be present in your room? Learning how to get that right before moving on seems sensible.
I've tried grounding the basket sighted--I wouldn't be able to tell you if it was or not had I not seen it. Did you have a measurable effect or any blind testing?
SUM, again on the Wood effect from earlier in the thread:
The PS there was about all the other tests you listed on the subject and none available turned out to be useful while listening to music. See my link for evidence as to it not being useful. When people stick to arguments against all available evidence, I have to wonder why and ask "why?" I'm assuming you have a reason beyond personal belief. Please know I'm not being hostile but hoping to learn something.
As far as having one monitor out of phase on stage, I don't see where it's much different than having a main speaker in your HT out of phase. I mean there are a lot of factors on spacing, volume, mix, music and such, but most of us have probably done this at one time or another in our HT and most of us have probably heard the effect. Nothing revolutionary there.
If no one can produce a shred of evidence that contradicts my claim, I will be forced to think that I'm on the right path and it's one other DIYers should also be on. I always have some evidence in my signature, but that certainly no where near all of it as most of you know.
Dan
I don't think the polar response should be ignored. As a matter of fact, in the Geddes thread, I have posted a few BEM sims and actual measurements. In these tests, it shows evidence of increased energy storage resulting in increased decay time in the CSD. I still have one more waveguide I have not listened to, and some additional test configurations that need to be looked into. After I get to listen to them, then a decision needs to be made as to what tradeoff needs to be considered if I want to implement it into a system.
For one thing, I'd consider a more Constant Directivity to get a more flexible sweet spot arrangement. There was a paper at AES that did some analysis in this regard and calculated what polar pattern and the amount of toe-in would to that. As for it's effect on room placement, I think we really have no control how the user room absorption patterns are going to be, so trying to design for that is like trying to hit a moving target, most control of polar response control is based on the assumption that the room absorption is going to be the same for all frequencies, we know that this is far from the truth in most cases.
Yeah, I hear that kind of talk even among buddies. So if it occurs once in a while, I look on the positive side. But thanks for standing up and making the point.
I was interested in how well HD content and 3D content is going to be received in TV programs. The local media providers seem to feel that once people get used to HD programs, they will not go back. Incidentally, we have the soccer games in HD and standard TV here, while my son and I was watching, I felt the view was a bit fuzzy, and noticed he was not looking at HD content, and told him so. Well, he asked "does it make a difference?" and switched to the HD station. I noticed the difference, and asked "does it make a difference?" His response, " not that I can see."
What is interesting is that I once did a quick calculation which confirmed my suspicion as to why TV manufacturers recommend the viewing distance they do. It turns out that based on the resolution of old standard, at the recommended distance, the pixel size is just about the limit of the resolution of the eye. So with HD programs, unless you are sitting much closer to the TV than the recommended distance to TV size ratio, it's very likely that you won't notice the improvement going to an HD set. 😀
So we normally find certain differences can be detected by some, but not by others. We just need to know where and how to find that reason.
I count 48 times 0° and 42 times 180°. What should I conclude from that: Record companies are ignorant about polarity? Or it does not matter?
I haven`t looked into absolute polarity before. How is 0° polarity defined? How and where can it be detected on a CD? And how can I be shure that the polarity on the CD is the same as at the recording in the concert hall?
All you have to do is go through the Stereophile measurements and it is readilly apparant that most speakers are not CD and many designers of these speakers simply do not agree that it is the most important attribute. You will also find many that are "voiced" with a not exactly flat on axis frequency response.
I happen to agree with you that it's important. That said I would take flat on axis response as a minimum if I couldn't get CD and smooth polars as well. When I do my own speakers I will look at the predicted polar response in LEAP and use that to match to the horn/waveguides pattern. Use that -6db point as the crossover frequency.
Rob🙂
The 0° and 180° are relative to the system used to conduct the evaluation. This means for 0° is all connections (and maybe polarity switch if his system had it) were normal setup. Some amplifiers or preamps are of inverting design, in case you have somthing like that, it is possible that you will get opposite results of that chart. Mine were generally the same. Since my system has a polarity switch built in, if I put a CD in the player and the sound is not asw focused as I think it should be, then I switch the polarity to see which way is better. So, it's really up to the listener to decide if it matters or not. Most of the CDs I play, the difference is very obvious, I do come across some CDs where the difference is not that obvious.
There is no way you can be sure you get the right polarity because if the recording was conducted using multiple mics, then it could be possible that some mics are inverted and some not. But the trend is generally quite consistent within the same brand.
I once posted a question regarding how polarity of mics were checked in a mic builders user group, and it created some confusion. Generally, by DIN definition, positive pressure should result in positive voltage on the positive pin, but it was mentioned that not all mic manufacturers follow that requirement. Seems that very few people have checked the polarity of their recording setup.
I once attended a concert where they were willing to provide the raw recording to people on a certain forum. So I listened live, then I got the recording on CD, played it back, the recording was inverted.
The first time I started to be aware of mic polarity was when I started speaker measurements, and the DUT impulse always was inverted compared to the reference impulse. I went through the mic preamp circuit, and it was non-inverting, so I asked around, and discovered that the most common WM61 connection method yields inverted electrical output.
Last edited:
Soongsc, that sounds a bit more like it. Still, have you read Dr. Toole's book? It indicates we do have the ability to hear through the room above the nodal region in a sense. Something else to think about when it comes to room treatments. No doubt reducing delayed or stored energy is an admirable goal, at what cost is the question. Looked at on it's own, it should be a good thing as I've mentioned. Remember, we do know that CSD is best at showing the resonances that are least audible from earlier in this thread. That's why I'm very hesitant to say that it is of major importance especially because I have no evidence of its importance. It could be reasoned that it is not useless, but scroll down on this page until the discussion of CSD:Zaph|Audio.
Take a look at this tweeter and its measurements courtesy of Zaph Audio:
Nuance TW5-120LR 1/2" Mylar Tweeter | Parts-Express.com
BTW, I'm not even talking about building a narrow CD speaker as the best even though so far it's easily my favorite. I'm talking about what's the best metric for a competent design to need to have correct. One can argue that a broader polar pattern better suits their taste for spaciousness, or they don't care about imaging, or even needs for coverage in their room etc..., but without accurate polar information, we're really lost when it comes to what is coming off of our speakers, into our room and ultimately audible.
Rob, have you ever seen how wrong those predicted polar patterns can be? Well, every one I've seen so far is. If you have ones even close to correct I'd be impressed. Simulations are easier on the eye in general, but I have mirrors and ugly things no longer bother me. I'd love to see a simulation on the Eminence Delta ProA then compare that to my actual data--of which I have plenty. Maybe Klippel's or LoudSoft's programs would be accurate enough of a simulation? I actually doubt it with paper or paper process cones. That would be my argument against simulations--show me one that resembles reality and I'll certainly consider it more useful.
Dan
Take a look at this tweeter and its measurements courtesy of Zaph Audio:
Nuance TW5-120LR 1/2" Mylar Tweeter | Parts-Express.com
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
BTW, I'm not even talking about building a narrow CD speaker as the best even though so far it's easily my favorite. I'm talking about what's the best metric for a competent design to need to have correct. One can argue that a broader polar pattern better suits their taste for spaciousness, or they don't care about imaging, or even needs for coverage in their room etc..., but without accurate polar information, we're really lost when it comes to what is coming off of our speakers, into our room and ultimately audible.
Rob, have you ever seen how wrong those predicted polar patterns can be? Well, every one I've seen so far is. If you have ones even close to correct I'd be impressed. Simulations are easier on the eye in general, but I have mirrors and ugly things no longer bother me. I'd love to see a simulation on the Eminence Delta ProA then compare that to my actual data--of which I have plenty. Maybe Klippel's or LoudSoft's programs would be accurate enough of a simulation? I actually doubt it with paper or paper process cones. That would be my argument against simulations--show me one that resembles reality and I'll certainly consider it more useful.
Dan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.