As I was reading the physics review paper, I was looking for one..
I had to help a guy here building a monopole detector, it needed a large fridge sized double mu metal walled enclosure. Someone had to help degauss it, dat be me..
I also used a 4 for a long time, inherited my wife's 6s.
Hey, when my phone dies from helium exposure, yours will still be working. Your oscillator isn't one of the MEMS type, so you're safe. Iphone 6 and later, smartwatches suffer from this.
jn
Last edited:
Expectation and prior knowledge aiding scene perception is a familiar idea since I've read much of what Linkwitz has to say on the matter, I'm happy to say it works for me in my room with my dipoles, I'm sure this has been discussed before, I don't think there's any argument this is a major aspect of psychoacoustics and how we create a believable image for ourselves.
"Randi's challenge applies to "actual performance," not "qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation," in which case he'd probably be safe using 50 cents worth of lamp cord as a comparison."
I've actually gone a stage further and used some old mains conduit cable I had knocking around, for the full fascinating story see my "Speaker Cable" thread with invaluable input from a number of regular, much respected, contributors to this thread.....
I've actually gone a stage further and used some old mains conduit cable I had knocking around, for the full fascinating story see my "Speaker Cable" thread with invaluable input from a number of regular, much respected, contributors to this thread.....
Fifth row ?....pfffffft
.Just in, an informal review from one of the guys at work....a sound engineer with ten years or so of live/studio experience.
This is on a pair of well regarded Audio Tecknica pro headphones with my formulation on the driver magnets and driver connections only.
Funny/cool that a pair of headphones can be transformed in less than 5 minutes.
Dan.
Fifth row ?....pfffffft
Just in, an informal review from one of the guys at work....a sound engineer with ten years or so of live/studio experience..
I didn't see a comparison to untreated headphones but "if played through low-fi speakers (such as laptop speakers, etc.), their songs can sound quite harsh and muddled". BTW Slipknot, and you complain about my music?
Last edited:
Gee I thought my grade school demo of dropping a super magnet down a copper pipe had anti-gravity hidden in it somewhere.
That said, I don't think your analogy is quite perfect there, Bill. 1% is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but, yes, it's a data-driven sport.
If you look at the improvements between first and last practice these days then it's usually less that 1% in lap time times (on a 90 second lap 1% is 0.9 seconds which is a huge amount when grid positions are often within a few thousandths.)
Every so often (once or twice a season) you get a case where the sims were wrong and then it gets fun (mexico this year).
But take an extreme case of Michael Schumacher. He wanted a car that turned in hard with zero understeer. If he didn't get that he had trouble extracting the most out of the car. However it made the car almost undrivable for the other driver in the team as it was designed around his driving style.
Still no relationship to domestic replay
Bands like that in front of the stage live are
1. F*** loud
2. F*** distorted
3. No attempt is made to mix a studio like stereo soundstage..
So he's saying your goop made it loud, distorted and mono? You can screw up a pair of headphones in 5 minutes?
Yes, I saw Linkwitz was aware of Bregman & auditory scene analysis (ASA) but does he only reference it in relation to room acoustics - you seem to also limit it to this consideration or have I picked this up wrong?
ASA is really a fundamental & core aspect of what our sense of hearing is about - what enables us to make sense of complex acoustic mixtures in order to best represent the real world & arrive at percepts corresponding
to the individual sound sources or follow, for instance ,a single melody in the midst of an orchestra.
"The task is also known as the ‘cocktail party problem’ [4], which refers to the ability to follow one conversation when many people are talking at the same time. The auditory system has to determine whether a sequence of
sounds all came from a single source, and should be perceived as a single ‘stream’ or whether there were multiple sources [5]. In the latter case, each sound in the sequence has to be allocated to its appropriate source and multiple streams should be heard."
As I said before this is a highly complex task & the fact of the matter is that there is not enough data (nerve impulses arriving on the auditory pathway) to uniquely solve this task i.e to uniquely match the signals to one particular auditory scene - it's an ill-posed problem that suffers from a poverty of stimulus. So at any point in time the auditory scene is the result of some guesswork & we are constantly in somewhat of a confused condition which we try to alleviate by using different techniques - techniques that we are only discovering but the easy ones to understand are - using other signals from other senses to corroborate with auditory signals - so vision is an important source of additional signals.
Other techniques used are predictive top-down guesswork selecting a finite set of previously stored patterns which best match the pattern of incoming auditory signals. Top-down matching isn't just a passive process, it actively directs the bottom-up signals by focusing attention to specific aspects of the evolving sound. And bottom-up signals can cause changes to the set of patterns that best corroborate with the signals - it's a two way communication.
So attention, inattention & previous experience also play a part in what is being heard, what aspects are being heard - like vision, we don't consciously hear what is outside our focus.
There's lots more to be said but the result of all the above is that auditory perception is fragile (as are other perceptions) hence we can experience auditory & visual illusions - it also explains why even when there is an obvious audible difference, we often don't score 100% in identifying this.
A lay persons guide makes an interesting read about the ambiguity of auditory perception & the use of illusions in the study of this perception, with particular emphasis on music perception
ASA: the sweet music of ambiguity
Last edited:
Still no relationship to domestic replay
No real argument with the rest and definitely no argument with what's quoted.
No, it all stems from how we learn to hear, early on we confirm direction of sound with our eyes and then through more and more experience the skill improves. Something he said I find interesting as well, it helps with our ability to create the illusion in our rooms if we expose ourselves to sound in the natural world, i.e. outdoor spaces.
The fellow knows the sound of his headphones...read it again and you will see that he is expressing examples of improvements and 'discoveries'.
Haha yes, I can't listen to some of the stuff you link to, I haven't really listened to his choices.BTW Slipknot, and you complain about my music?
Either way, clarifying the mix in the way he describes is remarkable and significant......new to him, old hat to me.
Dan.
Ok, thanks.
Yes, I agree with him - we start with an innate, rudimentary perception & learn the nature & behavior of sounds by regular exposure - we seem to build internal models of these sound patterns - this internal patterning is a complex area & not so well understood - it seems to involve statistical averaging which is clever way of distilling a complex sound down into an easier to store representation.
The bit about "helps with our ability to create the illusion in our rooms if we expose ourselves to sound in the natural world, i.e. outdoor spaces" I'm not sure is correct. We've already laid down the sound patterns & behaviors of how sound objects behave in nature - maybe additional exposure helps to remind/reinforce these patterns but I doubt it - the learning has already done its job to completion.
I do believe however that living with/listening to an audio system/device over a long time helps us to build a model of the sound of that system/device & this can be used as the internal model against which new systems/devices are compared.
An interesting aside - I believe how we acquire language, grammar, etc is simply by the regular hearing of the same word sounds & the same patterns of sounds that make up short phrases such as "Bye mama" & these form the building blocks for eventually learning correct grammar & sentence constructs. I know this is simplistic & Chomsky & others have researched this - linguistics is where the phrase "poverty of the stimulus" comes from - meaning that there is not enough information in just hearing the sounds of sentences to allow us to construct valid sentences ourselves, as children. I'm not so sure it isn't easily answered by the constant hearing of sentence repetition 7 the corrections when we attempt our own constructs?
What statement, loud? I've never been front and center where I could bear to stay and listen especially with hard aggressive music. I had a friend who setup for name acts in the 70's in the UK, front row SPL's were typically set at 120dB.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.