Yes but equalized against the hearing curve of your own ears.
It would probably sound pretty nasty.
Egads no, evidently you haven't seen how noisy and coarse EEG data is. Utility of EEG to audio testing is purely in making marketing gobblygook.
PS, hope you are healing well.
I doubt they can do that without first having you look at each picture in turn whilst they monitor and record the results then subsequently have you look at them randomly and compare
Conventional designs lead to 'audiophile neutrality' when done to perfection but they sound wrong. 'Bright, warm, bassy' work to compensate for shortcomings for a system that was never right to start with, and doesn't fit with the room, and adds issues that veil the recorded material.
With an accurate system I find them to be negative attributes. It's as if 'technically perfect' is code for 'gee, I expended so much on this I need to justify the effort'.
No doubt there's plenty of improvements to be made, but you're essentially asking for CERN's collider to be fit into a basketball court. There's going to be a better way to move forward than ostensible miniaturization.
But I digress. Are people talking about this myth of flat reproduction before or after the room gets a hold of the sound waves?
You guys just don't get it, which is understandable given you weren't paying attention to what I was carefully talking about. We're talking gigantic magnetic structures in this specific instance (colliders, MRI machines). Where are the new super-ferromagnetic materials? Notice how I was talking about machines requiring superconducting magnets? And how, as we move to higher and higher resolution MRI machines we need higher and higher magnetic fields, which has resulted in bigger and bigger MRI's. And still the voxel size is pretty big. Same thing goes for more and more energetic colliders.
As I said, if measuring the inside of the brain is the goal, then there's going to have to be a better way figured out. Not everything is neatly scalable.
As I said, if measuring the inside of the brain is the goal, then there's going to have to be a better way figured out. Not everything is neatly scalable.
Last edited:
Thanks for the prompt, so let me review and clarify my statement.
Several years (decades?) ago my wife and I did a blind study of the audibility of nonlinearity - the root cause of both THD and IMD. What we found was that there was no correlation between either THD or IMD as far as audibility goes. In other words some THD at 20% was inaudible while some THD at .1% was highly audible. So yes audible nonlinearities do exist, but neither THD or IMD can identify them.
It turns out that nonlinearities are most audible when the signal is low, i.e. when the nonlinearity is of high order and occurs near the zero crossing. The classic here is crossover distortion in an amp which is highly audible. (High orders of nonlinearity are very rare in loudspeakers because it is a mechanical system.) Low orders that occur dominantly at high levels are not audible even at %'s as high as 20-30. Examples of this would be BL product limiting in a loudspeaker. It can be shown that a soft clipped system actually sounds cleaner than a hard clipped one for the same level of clipping.
None of these effects can be resolved by either THD or IMD and as such these measures are pretty well useless for quantifying sound quality.
As to the argument about not being able to measure what we hear, we clearly can measure the vast majority of what we hear including imaging and probably dynamics (although you will have to objectively define this later term in order to continue talking about it.)
The main take-away of Toole and Olives work is that they can quantify 90-95% of what ALL blind listeners will perceive. Now one can argue that they fall into the 5% that hear better than others ... but I would rebuff by saying - That may be true, but then your opinion is of no value to the rest of us (the 95%.) Further, that 95% says that neutral frequency response with a neutral DI (for loudspeakers) is what matters most. THD and IMD do not enter into the picture (for loudspeakers) although to some extent the directivity enters into the picture in regards to "imaging" (not something that Toole makes many claims about.)
I truly believe that there are different design requirements for people who prefer in-venue recording like symphonic etc. where a wide directivity will help to enhance spaciousness, but tends to degrade imaging. If you (like me) prefer studio work then a narrower directivity in a more lively room will enhance imaging (spaciousness then comes from the room not the speakers.) So there may not be an ideal fro all, but the range of variables is narrowing considerably (IMO) down to these two types of preferred recordings.
I didn't mean any controversy by my comment, I just noticed that the cap I issue is common with folks that are normally careful. I have medial nerve damage in my right hand and I was just wondering if the standard keyboard causes issues with some of these normal aging problems.
Last edited:
My brain is simple and i'm only trying to elude my room resonances.
My answer is to be simple.
Have you by any chance noticed the spelling issue too? It's common with folks posting on internet forums.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.