Studies have shown (quoting Self here) that channel separation of 20 dB is all you need for good stereo. Not saying more is no good, but it puts to rest IMV demands for huge channel separation. Asymmetrical crosstalk probably a separate issue.
Ask yourself - if you have a source coming 45 degrees to the right of you, what would be the xtalk received in the left ear?
Would it have any chance to be more than -20dB? -30dB?
Do the test, plug up your right ear and listen only with your left. It really isn't that much lower in volume.
Jan
Would it have any chance to be more than -20dB? -30dB?
Do the test, plug up your right ear and listen only with your left. It really isn't that much lower in volume.
Jan
Any usefulness to put the problem in quadrature?
Q1: Can be both measured and heard
Q2: Can be measured, not heard
Q3: Dont care
Q4: Can be heard, but not measured
How many aspects have slipped from Q4 to Q1 in, say, the last 50 years. Waterfall plots of room / speaker decay over frequency perhaps? Measurement is improving, though I suspect its approach to the discrimination of human hearing may be asymptotic.
Everyone want to hear "we have the complete, water-tight set" regarding measurement, or it's "throw the baby out with the bathwater". C'mon - everyone knows we'll never get there by the "asymptotic" nature of the problem. Should not respect be given to the achievements made going toward that asymptote nevertheless?
What would be the complete achievement list, where measurement has joined hearing, for the last 50 years timeframe?
Q1: Can be both measured and heard
Q2: Can be measured, not heard
Q3: Dont care
Q4: Can be heard, but not measured
How many aspects have slipped from Q4 to Q1 in, say, the last 50 years. Waterfall plots of room / speaker decay over frequency perhaps? Measurement is improving, though I suspect its approach to the discrimination of human hearing may be asymptotic.
Everyone want to hear "we have the complete, water-tight set" regarding measurement, or it's "throw the baby out with the bathwater". C'mon - everyone knows we'll never get there by the "asymptotic" nature of the problem. Should not respect be given to the achievements made going toward that asymptote nevertheless?
What would be the complete achievement list, where measurement has joined hearing, for the last 50 years timeframe?
Q4 is an impossibility if you understand the scientific method. Which SY pointed out a thousand times before he got fed up.
Q4 probably refers to a case where there is no known measurement method available as of this point in time.
Its not same thing as denying an effect is physical.
Its not same thing as denying an effect is physical.
Don't know if this is demagoguery or you are this ignorant of the scientific method. If you can hear it, you have a working sensor/detector and at that point you can just move ahead to creating an objective measurement. But creating these scientifically laughable reasons why hearing is reliably measuring what you claim but somehow evades the scientific method of analysis keeps the suckers coming with their pocketbooks open.
What is the exact measurement method you are using today to measure soundstage depth cues embedded in an audio stream? Say you have a number of recordings and you want to measure depth cue content of each so find the deepest one? How are you doing it today?
Ear to ear ‘channel separation’ must be low single digit dB I’d have thought yet we can still localise incredibly accurately.
Sound localization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#:~:text=its current location.-,Human auditory system,us to localize sound sources.
Also of possible interest, the the modern field of study on human hearing:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.00524/full
In terms of some of the stuff that is being measured, manipulated, and synthesized in audio today:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-audiophile-market.402902/page-3#post-7451161
Also this: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...9ed56994b/1673513005206/8700i+A3+brochure.pdf
The above product brochure states the following:
"Xponential LoudnessTM Algorithm: The Xponential
LoudnessTM algorithm reduces listening fatigue and actually
improves listeners’ hearing using adaptive psychoacoustics.
It’s like an audio magnifying glass that brings out hidden
details, clarifying audio and inspiring audiences to listen longer."
Snake oil, you think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#:~:text=its current location.-,Human auditory system,us to localize sound sources.
Also of possible interest, the the modern field of study on human hearing:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2016.00524/full
In terms of some of the stuff that is being measured, manipulated, and synthesized in audio today:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-audiophile-market.402902/page-3#post-7451161
Also this: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...9ed56994b/1673513005206/8700i+A3+brochure.pdf
The above product brochure states the following:
"Xponential LoudnessTM Algorithm: The Xponential
LoudnessTM algorithm reduces listening fatigue and actually
improves listeners’ hearing using adaptive psychoacoustics.
It’s like an audio magnifying glass that brings out hidden
details, clarifying audio and inspiring audiences to listen longer."
Snake oil, you think?
Last edited:
HRTF? Ignoring for the moment that 2-channel playback makes a mess of it, learned body 'modified' xtalk is a foundation of localization.
Earlier you posited a thought experiment of replacing an imperfect amp with a perfect amp. If all elements of the reproduction chain from microphone to speaker are perfect agreed the result will be more perfect reproduction.
But we hear systems, not isolated devices. To use a very trivial contrived counter example for illustration, pairing an otherwise perfect preamp and amp with cancelling complimentary response deviations will be more perfect than replacing either with a perfect device. Slightly less contrived, my own acoustic measurements of an SE amp with approximately 0.3% predominantly 2nd harmonic distortion at 1 watt driving a speaker with comparable distortion showed that flipping speaker phase could reduce the measured acoustic 2nd harmonic arriving at my ear by up to 10 dB across large portions of the frequency band. Is that more perfect? I was trying to understand why ~0.3 % sounded best when playing with feedback. This unintended 'pre-correction' mechanism potentially explains the preference among some for low power tube SE second harmonic generators driving high efficiency horn SE second harmonic generators. Those claiming so are often socially excoriated.
Inter-stage second harmonic cancellation is commonly understood by builders who measure their work yet still universally ignored in, for example, system integration and home distortion audibility shootouts. That's at minimum a measurement oversight, one which promisingly in their specific design spheres manufacturers like Purifi and Hypex appear to be working around.
Yes, agreed. But for instance interstage distortion cancellation is relatively coarse. You never have the level and the (180) degree phase difference perfect. You can compensate say 3% distortion with a reverse 2.5% distortion but the result is still 0.5%.
In the quest to high linearity, this technique does not make a significant contribution.
I do not agree that pairing an otherwise perfect preamp and amp with cancelling complimentary response deviations will be more perfect than replacing either with a perfect device . Not at all. Not by a long shot.
Jan
In the quest to high linearity, this technique does not make a significant contribution.
I do not agree that pairing an otherwise perfect preamp and amp with cancelling complimentary response deviations will be more perfect than replacing either with a perfect device . Not at all. Not by a long shot.
Jan
How do you propose measuring something that is a subjective illusion?
True human sound location works with a real sound source, that's not at all the same as a stereo illusion.
Did you read what they are doing with car audio? Digitally removing ambience and replacing it with the ambience of another venue. If they can identify ambience, and one of the cues for depth is ratio of direct to reverberant sound, then seems to me they are pretty close to being able to measure depth cues already. Maybe they can and are.
In case that's not clear, the cues themselves are not imaginary.
In case that's not clear, the cues themselves are not imaginary.
Except - if you've tried it, it doesn't really work. It's an ok effect in it's way, but pretty crass.
I believe you. When I wrote about car audio I said it wasn't about accuracy.
However, the point remains that depth cues themselves are physical and thus in principle measurable. Or would you say they are physical yet unmeasurable?
However, the point remains that depth cues themselves are physical and thus in principle measurable. Or would you say they are physical yet unmeasurable?
Why i like to think in terms of information loss instead of added distortion. (Thank you Julian Vereker). It looks the question of reproduction fidelity from the other direction and i have found brings important insights.
Jan, you only know it is missing when you get kit that reveals it. A good practical example is how a small loudspeaker (ie Frugel-Horn Lite) can give a real impression of deep bass when it is really only doing a good job of the first harmonic, hook up a loudspeaker with bass and realize what is missing.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.