And the left speaker gets the left channel wheras the right speaker gets the right channel? Just to make sure, did you check cables?
I didn't take so much effort in my mono experiments, but usually I am careful to get no wrong polarity in any driver.
That hasn't generally been my experience, although it may be for others. In my efforts to minimize my speakers' sonic thumbprint, the colors of the recording come through the most when they are modified the least by the speakers 'colors'. If the recording's colors aren't then coming through, maybe they weren't there in the first place or something in the playback chain is masking them.
For instance, through my Iron Lawbreakers, it normal to be able to hear acoustic reflections & resonances and driver/electronic distortion that are specific to acoustic environments & speakers used in particular recordings. I have live recordings on LP that even plausibly convey the sound of compression drivers through diffraction horns through these speakers.
Of course, if the recording's 'colors' are mostly quantization artifacts or the information that is deleted by lossy encoding processes, what is needed is an acoustic bandaid, and a colored 'euphonic' sounding speaker will sound more pleasant than an accurate but 'uncolored' speaker.
Last edited:
Holy cr@p.. go back to work for a few days and 12 pages pop-up. 😱
A few comments on a paper here:
While this is yet another nice paper co-authored by Blauert.
http://symphony.arch.rpi.edu/~braas...dyMaterials3_Blauert08/blauertbraasch2005.pdf
-It is however about delayed sound *production* in reflective environments. In other words it's about ACOUSTICS, not sound reproduction. (..tinitus was correct Markus.)
Right from the start (2 Phenomenology 1st paragraph) it conditions that:
"..For delays below about 1 ms, both loudspeaker signals contribute to the direction of the auditory event (so-called summing localization, which is exploited in stereo.."
The rest of the article is about delays well beyond 1 ms between sources.
Now unless someone has a *very* peculiar stereo setup, where one channel is delayed more than a ms from the other, then this article has almost nothing to do with classic stereo reproduction.
IF you add-in significantly *delayed* DIRECT sound, such as rare and peculiar synthesized surround (i.e. old school delay of additional channels of L & R), THEN this article would become relevant. But not only is that exceedingly rare, it's also multi-channel audio, not classic stereo reproduction. (..the paper is of course also relevant to surround sound channel sound engineers for live action sequences in movies.)
Also note that figure 1 displays differences in 1 ms delays, and 1-80 ms delays. Additionally the paper talks about trumpets in relation to each other (with delays), etc.. All fairly obvious indicators of *acoustics* research.
Now don't get me wrong, Blauert authors and co-authors some of the better studies into psychoacoustics in relation to sound production (which can be a field of Acoustics).. but that's not sound *reproduction*.
Also, with respect to psychoacoustics, the term can include either the psychological perception or the physiological response (or both). Blauert's paper has both.. but that doesn't mean that it invalidates *just* psychological study.
Long story short:
IF someone uses Blauert as a reference with respect to sound reproduction, something Markus seems to do repeatedly, you should probably be *very* skeptical of its relevance (and very carefully read what is offered as "support"). 😉
A few comments on a paper here:
While this is yet another nice paper co-authored by Blauert.
http://symphony.arch.rpi.edu/~braas...dyMaterials3_Blauert08/blauertbraasch2005.pdf
-It is however about delayed sound *production* in reflective environments. In other words it's about ACOUSTICS, not sound reproduction. (..tinitus was correct Markus.)
Right from the start (2 Phenomenology 1st paragraph) it conditions that:
"..For delays below about 1 ms, both loudspeaker signals contribute to the direction of the auditory event (so-called summing localization, which is exploited in stereo.."
The rest of the article is about delays well beyond 1 ms between sources.
Now unless someone has a *very* peculiar stereo setup, where one channel is delayed more than a ms from the other, then this article has almost nothing to do with classic stereo reproduction.
IF you add-in significantly *delayed* DIRECT sound, such as rare and peculiar synthesized surround (i.e. old school delay of additional channels of L & R), THEN this article would become relevant. But not only is that exceedingly rare, it's also multi-channel audio, not classic stereo reproduction. (..the paper is of course also relevant to surround sound channel sound engineers for live action sequences in movies.)
Also note that figure 1 displays differences in 1 ms delays, and 1-80 ms delays. Additionally the paper talks about trumpets in relation to each other (with delays), etc.. All fairly obvious indicators of *acoustics* research.
Now don't get me wrong, Blauert authors and co-authors some of the better studies into psychoacoustics in relation to sound production (which can be a field of Acoustics).. but that's not sound *reproduction*.
Also, with respect to psychoacoustics, the term can include either the psychological perception or the physiological response (or both). Blauert's paper has both.. but that doesn't mean that it invalidates *just* psychological study.
Long story short:
IF someone uses Blauert as a reference with respect to sound reproduction, something Markus seems to do repeatedly, you should probably be *very* skeptical of its relevance (and very carefully read what is offered as "support"). 😉
Last edited:
Scott, I've linked that paper because there was and still is a gross misunderstanding what psychoacoustics is about. Tinitus also stated that the paper is aimed at concert halls and that's simply not true.
It is effectively mono, probably with less problems than mixing into one channel as Graaf does.
Why not just link to a definition? 😕
Actually the paper is in fact targeting concert hall acoustics. It doesn't come out and say it, because the primary emphasis is on listener perception and the physiology behind it.
Basically it's a shift in perspective, and a warranted one because it *can* include topics beyond concert hall acoustics. That however does not detract from its *focus*.
Last edited:
I did give a definition which was not accepted.
That paper isn't targeting concert hall acoustics but the precedence effect which isn't something that occurs only within concert halls. It occurs in each and every space.
Please stop reading between the lines. It would be enough if you could just read what was said.
So what channel is exactly goind to which speaker? Sorry, but I've obviously missed the system description. I don't know what graaf is doing because he's on my ignore liste for quite some time now.
Actually you did give a definition (post 480), not a *LINK to a common definition*, and then IMMEDIATELY provided the Blauert article (post 481) as some sort of support. It's not like the "support" was added *after* people objected to your definition. 😉
There is a context to everything. IF you strip the context from the article (or anything), then you aren't getting the "whole picture" and are quite possibly being mislead (or are misleading others).
The emphasis of the article was listener perception (and its physiology) in relation to the precedence effect.
The focus however was concert hall acoustics because of the limitations in the study and direct references to concert hall activities.
i.e. less than 1 ms - knocked out quickly (yet still provided to show differences). Greater than 80ms - briefly discussed (yet again provided to show differences). Separate sound *sources* delayed in time like trumpets. Trumpets with varying sound content (in addition to time). ..etc..
Thank you, no. I'll continue to "read between the lines", because to do otherwise is just plain *stupid*. I prefer to be *informed*, not *misinformed*.
And now that you have asked me to do something, I'll ask something from you.
Please stop:
1. abbreviating your posts/comments. Sometimes a couple of lines or even a single word is good enough to convey your message to most readers, but with more complex topics it often leads to miscommunication. (..and a resulting series of posts trying to explain what you intended from a single post - and just a sh!t-load of confusion from others.)
2. using articles for support without providing specific cites/quotes and a connected relationship. I *know* I've asked you to do this before. Yet you keep on *dumping* articles on posts with only the most general reasons for providing these articles. Sure some are interesting all on their own, but most of us don't want to "wade through" 5 or more pages of generally difficult material to "get to your point".
Ex. Your article post link:
"Example of what psychoacoustics is about, its methods and also a good basic paper" (..with article link.)
Just why is this a good example of what you believe psychoacoustics are "about". What about the methods? Why is it a "good basic paper"? Are you conducting an ad. campaign?
There is a difference between dumping an article (or worse, a whole book), and actually providing *support* for your reader.
Last edited:
Why not just ask if there's something you didn't understand? This is not a book but a forum where people interact.
The forum is a place where people strive to *communicate*.
When I read over several pages of *confusion* from others, I start wondering *why* there is such confusion over such an extended discourse.
Ex. "colored" from your post 428.. spawned how many pages reasonably unrelated to this thread? All just from "sounds colored to me", with a terse follow-up of "In English voices shouldn't sound colored." And then what, 4 more posts just from you trying to make your statement clear?
The others.. well, I've responded to some in an attempt to derive a more succinct statement. 😱
Sure, posting like this is interaction, and eventually it is even communication - it's just a shame that a little more precision couldn't have been used to communicate more and interact less.
Brevity is fine so long as it is succinct.
Then there is error - which also leads to misinformation and miscommunication (for at least one party).
The manner in which Radugazon used the term "psyhcoacoustic" (..which in part spawned this post), was correct.
i.e. "life, the soul, the magic, all the things that can't be measured are in the psychoacoustic domain.."
The use of "psychoacoustic" often references sound perception, measurable or not.
You attempted to resolve an issue that you yourself created. 😉
Psychoacoustics is a different word.
Even then - the scientific pursuit of perceptual and philological changes from sound does not preclude something that cannot be measured or more likely *has* not been measured. Think about it. As a scientific study it's all an *attempt* to prove something through repeatable measurable results, and each scientist had to start from somewhere. I'm sure given a sufficiently defined expression for the subjective response of "life" or "soul" or "magic", that in fact it could be measured, and would very much reside within the study of Psychoacoustics.
So while Radugazon's statement was used correctly, his intent may not be. 😱
BTW, I understood everything.
It's also not always about asking others for clarification, because you first have to realize that clarification is even required - and in some instances pages of miscommunication can spew forth until this is realized.
Last edited:
Scott, if you want to criticize me then please send a PM. The topic is not "Why is Markus not more popular?"
I am certain that this trivial question has been explained by Blauert et al. many years ago, after all it is all just textbook level psychoacoustics, I just can't find the relevant peer-reviewed paper... 😛
Last edited:
Holy Cow! were still talking about the mysterious hidden message in the link? I just reread it backwards it tells the about covert plot to create the future downgrade in the US's credit status. That's creepy! Markradamus perhaps.
After this wasted page, no one get on me about a wasted post.
Dan
After this wasted page, no one get on me about a wasted post.
Dan