Nice, I was going to ask for that as well.
As to "no cable effects in the ITD area", given humans discern down to the 2 to 5 microsecond range (with some subjects demonstrating by controlled measurement 1.2 microsecond capability), how did you come to that conclusion from that graph?
Jn
Last edited:
Try putting ion collider physicists (positively charged beams) in a room with synchrotron physicists (electron beam). It reminds me of that clear box with mousetraps loaded with ping pong balls to demonstrate fission. Only the trigger is "right hand rule" vs "left hand rule".
Jn
Thankfully ITD is rarely used in mixing. Stereo Perception, Sound Localization & Auditory Cues
So you´ve read in my post this sentence
"Discussion across several fields are often a bit difficult due to different meaning/usage of the same terms."
but instead of asking you felt the urge to follow your obsession?
We were discussing about the response of the auditory system to different stimuli, so i did assume it was not that difficult to get that my sentence above was related to the usage of terms in that field.
"Single tone" or "pure tone" is often used to denote a stimulus of a single frequency; "complex tone" is used to denote a stimulus with fundamental and additional harmonics:
(Pitch, Neural Coding and Perception; Springer handbook of auditory research; v. 24, 3)
So, in this context what is a more constructive approach to a fruitful discussion
-) insisting that "those pesky pitchfork wielding engineers" usage of terms is the only acceptable way to communicate
or
-) trying to understand what usage is common in other fields?
Last edited:
Actually, that reminds me, thanks, I was going to ask what the several fields related to in this context?
You will note that I purposely did not ask for that specific comparison for a very good reason. The two ends of the cable will always track at the single prop delay level.
It is your kind of reasoning (which is actually quite good even though inaccurate) that made me estimate the speaker understandings are at least ten years away.
Do the actual tests I specified, you will begin to understand.
Jn
PS.. Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I hold Pavel in the highest regard. I worry about online discussions being interpreted incorrectly.
Last edited:
it might be not so often used, but some people are quite sensitive if only panning is used in a recording. Iirc for example jj was on the record that he barely is able to listen to records using only pan pots for positioning of virtual sound sources.
Really?
You have to ask still after syn08 gave a textbook example as a member of another field ????
Yes, in the context you used it initially, did it stem from what SoundAndMotion said about how the LF hairs would respond to a fast or slow bass attack? I thought there might be some difference between how the ear responds and any other tuned mechanism, but there doesn't seem to be any?Really?
I concur. The images act weird and are head position sensitive. When ITD is consistent with desired position, the images are head position invariant.
Jn
While those are good tests, they are not consistent with the discussion.
It reminds me of looking for my keys at the lamppost because there is light, vs where I actually dropped them.
Jn
It is more insightful to look at the open-loop transfer function. JFET's, bi-polars, and valves are dramatically different in the voltage ranges over which they are linear in voltage to current transfer and their behavior as they limit. I usually reserve slew rate as the limiting case where the current out reaches a maximum available (if applicable) and there is no more forward V to I gain.
When placed in a feedback loop there is an error signal at the input the behavior of the input stage with respect to linearity at that level is what is important. A useful exercise is the case of bog standard op-amp type circuits is to take the closed loop case and work backwards assuming the output is perfect. That is if the output is perfect then its input has to be this, on and on until you get to the input and say the input has to be this for the output to be perfect.
Last edited:
While you may be correct
, I was just explaining slew rate as a definition of signal, as opposed to the slew rate def as 10 to 90 percent.Jn
I love that, a statistics prof once dumped a few thousand down the stairwell of the Green Building to demonstrate one of the probability distributions. OK on above, I was just going beyond simple definition and actually dealing with design choice issues, at least I was trying to.
Last edited:
Yes, the results are unsurprising. It has nothing in common with AP2 or a Benchmark. The key is that wavelengths of all audio frequencies are so long that no line properties that should be described by wave equations and wave impedances are needed. Even 50kHz has wavelength of 6km. And we are speaking about 6m of cable now! Wave properties would become important from some 15MHz, not earlier.
It absolutely does not matter which audio band signal would be used for the test. The time difference between input and output here is 150ns, which corresponds to inductance of about 1.2uH, which is quite perfect for a zip cord of 6m length. The phenomenon is completely linear. Supposing 150ns tau, we add 1.06MHz low pass filter behind the amplifier.
Everyone who tries to explain so called "sound differences" by phase shifts of 20 feet of the speaker cable interacting with the speaker load is just supporting black magic. I have not seen any measurement here supporting such pseudo-theories.
I am sure that this will blow soon, as everything, as every courageous pseudo-theory posted here. Shall I remind some of them?
In the context i used it initially it did stem from mmerill99´s post relating to your "fourier denial" quip and a previous Scott Wurcer comment.
When talking about our hearing sense and audio technology there are involved neurology, psychoacoustics, physics/ee , statistics and psychology.
Another example of the communication difficulties was given by a member in the "phase thread" who insisted that "phase locking" (used to describe neuronal firing consistently at peaks of the stimulating waveform) is a "totally unscientific" usage by "someone who does not understand" .
The question about the difference between "the ear" and other "tuned mechanism" is imo a totally different topic, but there surely are differences - otherwise we could use another tuned mechanism as a (nearly) perfect black box working like our ear - but it surely depends on which part is examined.
As stated earlier it is difficult due to the feedback mechanisms, the nonlinearites and the different pathways (levels of processing) that are involved, which make us to nonlinear responders.
Last edited:
...hence the confusion (very common, I must say). The signal amplitude related "rise time" is directly related to the amplifier bandwidth (considering a single pole system) through Bandwidth[MHz]*Risetime[uS]=0.35 and does not limit in any way the output capability to "follow well". Rise time and bandwidth are essentially linear properties of the amplifier.
Slew rate has nothing to do with the amplifier bandwidth or "rise time". It is simply reflecting the behavior of a system under large signal conditions. It is essentially a non linear property of the amplifier.
May I humbly ask if there is anything new with the JN drive? It seemed to be quite a topic, few months ago.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.