Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
High End Audio Again
176 views
Skip to first unread message
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 1, 2012, 12:15:24 PM4/1/12
to
After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer
Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its
knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and room treatments - now brace
yourself for the final solution: Mr. Belt has succeeded in bottling concert
hall air and making it last for an entire LP. You just open the top and let
the air mingle with your own. The canisters sell for just $499, and can be
saved on the shelf until the next playing for at least two weeks! Save it
until the next time you need to put on a demo to impress your friends. A
12-pack can be had for a discounted rate of $4999 plus shipping.
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers
proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared"
reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster,
more palpable, and there was more 'there' there."
There there.
Gary Eickmeier
Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its
knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and room treatments - now brace
yourself for the final solution: Mr. Belt has succeeded in bottling concert
hall air and making it last for an entire LP. You just open the top and let
the air mingle with your own. The canisters sell for just $499, and can be
saved on the shelf until the next playing for at least two weeks! Save it
until the next time you need to put on a demo to impress your friends. A
12-pack can be had for a discounted rate of $4999 plus shipping.
A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers
proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared"
reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster,
more palpable, and there was more 'there' there."
There there.
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Apr 1, 2012, 12:26:46 PM4/1/12
to
> A demonstration in New York City to a group of high-end dealers
Orchestra.
> and writers proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one
> "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The
> air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more
> 'there' there."
That means the air couldn't have been sourced from the Oakland Symphony
> "golden eared" reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The
> air became suddenly faster, more palpable, and there was more
> 'there' there."
Orchestra.
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Apr 1, 2012, 12:56:18 PM4/1/12
to Gary Eickmeier
On Sunday, April 1, 2012 12:15:24 PM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer
> Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its
> knees.
LOL at Peter Belt and the 'phooles who buy his products. But please don't include room treatments among your list of BS tweaks. Room acoustics is an important aspect of audio reproduction, and bass traps, diffusers, and other treatments are important tools for improving sound quality.
> After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer
> Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its
> knees.
--Ethan
Ron Capik
Apr 1, 2012, 1:06:21 PM4/1/12
to
the characteristic air of the orchestra and conductor?
Think of the possibilities if one could mix and match!
Also wondering if lower cost small venue air will become
available in the future.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Scott Dorsey
Apr 1, 2012, 1:10:22 PM4/1/12
to
you know it's authentic.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Soundhaspriority
Apr 1, 2012, 1:17:43 PM4/1/12
to
Ron Capik
Apr 1, 2012, 1:27:52 PM4/1/12
to
Jason
Apr 1, 2012, 1:28:51 PM4/1/12
to
On 1 Apr 2012 13:10:22 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in
article <jla25u$8va$1...@panix2.panix.com>
Flatulence is ok. I want to know if the Air is treated for pathogens and
allergens upon packaging. And, if so, how might the treatment affect its
sonic properties??
article <jla25u$8va$1...@panix2.panix.com>
allergens upon packaging. And, if so, how might the treatment affect its
sonic properties??
PStamler
Apr 1, 2012, 1:48:34 PM4/1/12
to
I imagine there are different varieties; Chamber Air, Symphony Air,
Jazz Air, etc.. I'm waiting for Burlesque Air, aka "Air on a G
String".
Peace,
Paul
Jazz Air, etc.. I'm waiting for Burlesque Air, aka "Air on a G
String".
Peace,
Paul
Richard Webb
Apr 1, 2012, 5:33:40 PM4/1/12
to
On Sun 2012-Apr-01 12:15, Gary Eickmeier writes:
> pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the
> industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and
> room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr.
> Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last
> for an entire LP.
<snip>
> pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the
> industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and
> room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr.
> Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last
> for an entire LP.
I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
hopefully we don't have time for them here.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Mike Rivers
Apr 1, 2012, 3:23:31 PM4/1/12
to
On 4/1/2012 5:33 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
Audio Aprilphools, perhaps.
> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 1, 2012, 5:37:18 PM4/1/12
to
OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat.
Gary Eickmeier
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:s5GdnTISR98qEOXS...@giganews.com...
Gary Eickmeier
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:s5GdnTISR98qEOXS...@giganews.com...
Luxey
Apr 1, 2012, 6:32:12 PM4/1/12
to Gary Eickmeier
april fool!
Richard Webb
Apr 1, 2012, 10:03:43 PM4/1/12
to
On Sun 2012-Apr-01 15:23, Mike Rivers writes:
>> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
>> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
>> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
> Audio Aprilphools, perhaps.
<arrrgh> Got me again. forgot what day it is. Every
>> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
>> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
>> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
> Audio Aprilphools, perhaps.
couple years somebody gets me with one. I just never pay
attention to it.
Glad i dialed back the high octane torch before posting
<grumble>.
I should've known <g>.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 2, 2012, 9:32:11 AM4/2/12
to
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers
>proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared"
>reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster,
>more palpable, and there was more 'there' there."
Interviewer: Is this some new sort of hi-fi you're talking about?
>
>A demonstration in New York City to a group of high end dealers and writers
>proved that the concept works. "Incredible," said one "golden eared"
>reviewer, who wishes to remain anonymous. "The air became suddenly faster,
>more palpable, and there was more 'there' there."
Beatnik: Oh, yeah, man, my fi is very very high. It's very mellow.
-- Ernie Kovacs Routine
Frank Stearns
Apr 2, 2012, 6:19:29 PM4/2/12
to
>> After suffering criticism from all corners of the industry, audio pioneer=
>=20
>> Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its=20
>> knees.
>LOL at Peter Belt and the 'phooles who buy his products. But please don't i=
>nclude room treatments among your list of BS tweaks. Room acoustics is an i=
>mportant aspect of audio reproduction, and bass traps, diffusers, and other=
are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to.
For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of listening
tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might have merit,
and which are a waste of time and money.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
>=20
>> Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the industry to its=20
>> knees.
>LOL at Peter Belt and the 'phooles who buy his products. But please don't i=
>nclude room treatments among your list of BS tweaks. Room acoustics is an i=
>mportant aspect of audio reproduction, and bass traps, diffusers, and other=
> treatments are important tools for improving sound quality.
Ethan is spot on. Beyond a certain basic quality of equipment, room acoustics
are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to.
For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of listening
tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might have merit,
and which are a waste of time and money.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 2, 2012, 9:36:22 PM4/2/12
to
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NT3er.171524$rL1.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat.
>
April Fools is getting really tough. This is what you have to compete
>
against:
http://electronicdesign.com/article/articles/what-s-all-this-hoax-stuff-anyhow-6134
Consideration is being given to cancelling it entirely next year.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 2, 2012, 9:51:18 PM4/2/12
to
"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:mZudnTAcauFsuOfS...@posted.palinacquisition...
> Ethan is spot on. Beyond a certain basic quality of equipment, room
> acoustics
> are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to.
>
> For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of
> listening
> tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might
> have merit,
> and which are a waste of time and money.
that results in greater realism is to get a bigger room.
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
Apr 3, 2012, 8:51:23 AM4/3/12
to
news:MqqdnRbEtZaLyefS...@giganews.com...
" Let's say you have demonstration models of some good loudspeakers. How do
you decide that type A is better than type B, or, that it's different? Mr.
David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
combined a set of relays and a random number generator to make an "ABX"
tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester connects to the A speakers,
or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can listen intently and decide
that the sound you're listening to is the "A" sound.
If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you
push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel
A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B,
B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you
what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's
a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's
four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good
ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell.
In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test.
Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are
connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear
the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance,
capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how
exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires
have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can.
So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for
$100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better
because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a
$480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts
claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift,"
etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax.
You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a
difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and
stalk out.
Now, let me digress briefly. Let's say you have demonstration models of some
good loudspeakers. How do you decide that type A is better than type B, or,
that it's different? Mr. David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs,
Farmington Hills, Mich., combined a set of relays and a random number
generator to make an "ABX" tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester
connects to the A speakers, or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can
listen intently and decide that the sound you're listening to is the "A"
sound.
If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you
push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel
A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B,
B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you
what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's
a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's
four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good
ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell.
In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test.
Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are
connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear
the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance,
capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how
exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires
have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can.
So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for
$100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better
because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a
$480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts
claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift,"
etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax.
You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a
difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and
stalk out."
In fact, Dave and 5 other people including myself were repsonsible for
inventing, designing and building the above-mentioned ABX device. It is
interesting that the long-term response of the top High End audio gurus such
as Atkinson and Harley has been to, as Mr. Pease said: "...get mad at me and
stalk out".
>
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:NT3er.171524$rL1.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat.
>>
> April Fools is getting really tough. This is what you have to compete
> against:
>
> http://electronicdesign.com/article/articles/what-s-all-this-hoax-stuff-anyhow-6134
Intersting quote from the above:
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:NT3er.171524$rL1.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> OK, I give. Real life (real Peter Belt) has me beat.
>>
> April Fools is getting really tough. This is what you have to compete
> against:
>
> http://electronicdesign.com/article/articles/what-s-all-this-hoax-stuff-anyhow-6134
" Let's say you have demonstration models of some good loudspeakers. How do
you decide that type A is better than type B, or, that it's different? Mr.
David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
combined a set of relays and a random number generator to make an "ABX"
tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester connects to the A speakers,
or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can listen intently and decide
that the sound you're listening to is the "A" sound.
If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you
push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel
A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B,
B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you
what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's
a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's
four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good
ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell.
In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test.
Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are
connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear
the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance,
capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how
exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires
have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can.
So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for
$100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better
because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a
$480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts
claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift,"
etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax.
You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a
difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and
stalk out.
Now, let me digress briefly. Let's say you have demonstration models of some
good loudspeakers. How do you decide that type A is better than type B, or,
that it's different? Mr. David L. Clark, Chief Engineer, DLC Designs,
Farmington Hills, Mich., combined a set of relays and a random number
generator to make an "ABX" tester. If you push the switch for A, the tester
connects to the A speakers, or the A set of wires, or whatever. Then you can
listen intently and decide that the sound you're listening to is the "A"
sound.
If you hit B, you get channel B, and you listen to "the B sound." If you
push X, you get a randomized selection and you jot down whether it's channel
A or B. At the end of 10 tests, let's say that you have listed: A, B, A, B,
B, B, A, A, A, B. Once that sequence is completed, the ABX box will tell you
what it ACTUALLY connected. If you listed eight out of 10 correctly, that's
a lot better than just guessing-you probably did hear a difference. If it's
four or five, well... Who knows? In some cases, some people with really good
ears can hear things that I cannot. In other cases, they're unable to tell.
In yet other cases, they refuse to try because they don't like the test.
Still, when speaker cables of different types or characteristics are
connected through an ABX box, some people with "really good ears" might hear
the difference IF the wires have different amounts of inductance,
capacitance, or resistance. It's generally admitted that no matter how
exotic the materials or the construction techniques, if two sets of wires
have the same R, L, and C, you can't tell them apart. Nobody can.
So you'll find that one guy wants to sell you 10 feet of speaker cable for
$100; another guy claims his are a LOT better, and they MUST be better
because they cost $300 for 10 feet; and then a similar claim is made for a
$480 cable. But if they all have the same R, L, and C-and each one spouts
claims such as..."superior imaging"..."finer presence and less phase shift,"
etc., etc.-that strikes me as somewhere between fraud and hoax.
You can spend your money any way you want to. You can say that you hear a
difference. But if I offer you an ABX test, you should not get mad at me and
stalk out."
In fact, Dave and 5 other people including myself were repsonsible for
inventing, designing and building the above-mentioned ABX device. It is
interesting that the long-term response of the top High End audio gurus such
as Atkinson and Harley has been to, as Mr. Pease said: "...get mad at me and
stalk out".
Scott Dorsey
Apr 3, 2012, 9:57:27 AM4/3/12
to
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
>
>"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
>
>> Ethan is spot on. Beyond a certain basic quality of equipment, room
>> acoustics
>> are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to.
>>
>> For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of
>> listening
>> tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might
>> have merit,
>> and which are a waste of time and money.
>
>Too big a subject for a thread in a newsgroup, but the only room treatment
>that results in greater realism is to get a bigger room.
Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea. Just
>> acoustics
>> are *by far* the most important thing you can attend to.
>>
>> For one thing, good room acoustics will take a lot of ambiguity out of
>> listening
>> tests to determine which esoteric hardware or tweaks to hardware might
>> have merit,
>> and which are a waste of time and money.
>
>Too big a subject for a thread in a newsgroup, but the only room treatment
>that results in greater realism is to get a bigger room.
getting standing waves under control above 40 Hz or so can make a dramatic
improvement in a room.
Hell, I have been to some very expensive manufacturers' demos in listening
rooms with windows all over the place, direct slap echos at high frequencies
causing very obvious imaging issues... nobody seemed to care.... Just
closing the curtains would have made a distinct improvement...
--scott
Mxsmanic
Apr 3, 2012, 11:02:24 AM4/3/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea.
What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof and
> Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea.
no walls for tens of miles in every direction?
Scott Dorsey
Apr 3, 2012, 11:05:57 AM4/3/12
to
It's fairly common to do measurement work this way rather than use an
anechoic chamber. With a speaker set up on top of a ladder in a meadow, I
can see standing waves from the ground and sometimes a little bit from the
ladder, but otherwise I can get pretty clean curves.
For actual listening this is sometimes a bad thing since most recordings
are made a little dry, with the intention of listening to them in a slightly
live acoustic.
geoff
Apr 4, 2012, 2:38:10 AM4/4/12
to
geoff
geoff
Apr 4, 2012, 2:39:59 AM4/4/12
to
Richard Webb wrote:
> On Sun 2012-Apr-01 12:15, Gary Eickmeier writes:
>> pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the
>> industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and
>> room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr.
>> Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last
>> for an entire LP.
> <snip>
>
>
> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
No really - for the music to sound 'right' the medium (air, in this case)
> On Sun 2012-Apr-01 12:15, Gary Eickmeier writes:
>> pioneer Peter Belt has released a product that could bring the
>> industry to its knees. We have had fancy cables, green pens, and
>> room treatments - now brace yourself for the final solution: Mr.
>> Belt has succeeded in bottling concert hall air and making it last
>> for an entire LP.
> <snip>
>
>
> I would hope you don't actually buy into that snake oil
> bullshit. I'm sure there are audiophools who might, but
> hopefully we don't have time for them here.
needs to be Concert Hall Density. Otherwise the different instruments arrive
at the listening position at different times.
geoff
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 4, 2012, 7:43:32 AM4/4/12
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:R46dnfodMMMXcebS...@giganews.com...
> No really - for the music to sound 'right' the medium (air, in this case)
> needs to be Concert Hall Density. Otherwise the different instruments
> arrive at the listening position at different times.
when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe -
but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave
arrive?
Gary Eickmeier
Soundhaspriority
Apr 4, 2012, 11:18:09 AM4/4/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n64mn79gdhfmqoqqi...@4ax.com...
surfaces. Examples:
1. Speaker hung on middle of wall = 1 boundary surface.
2. Speaker on floor at juncture of wall and floor = 2 boundary surfaces.
3. Speaker in corner at juncture of two walls and floor = 3 boundary
surfaces.
4. Speaker in very small space, such as a sound booth with rigid walls =
pressurization model of acoustic space.
If the wall is rigid, acoustic reinforcement of the speaker output is
proportional to the sum of the boundary surfaces. The speaker designer
voices the speaker with the assumption of one of the above. As the frequency
reproduced approaches zero, the acoustic model transitions from one that
approximates free space, to another model dominated by standing waves, and
finally, one characterized by pressurization. Headphones are designed for a
pressurized space.
Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition
that results from experience we've all had. Sound outside sounds thin
compared to sound inside, and this is the reason why.
Speakers for outdoor sound reinforcement are designed with the assumption of
no boundary surface reinforcement. This requires much higher acoustic power
, which practically speaking, requires much higher acoustic efficiency, than
speakers designed for use inside. This is typically met with horn radiators,
which have problems with phase shift. So it is a real question whether
available technology can provide sound as pleasing on a salt flat as in a
well treated acoustic space.
So here's a question: Are there outdoor sound systems that have such high
fidelity that the salt flat can be used to best the fidelity of the best
interior systems and treated rooms? Assume full bandwidth is required.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Apr 4, 2012, 11:57:28 AM4/4/12
to Gary Eickmeier
On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 7:43:32 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive?
All sound travels at the same speed, about 1100 feet per second. So if you're 11 feet in front of a loudspeaker, you'll hear the sound 10 milliseconds after it starts to play.
> So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave arrive?
--Ethan
Mike Rivers
Apr 4, 2012, 2:58:26 PM4/4/12
to
On 4/4/2012 7:43 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you determine
> when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe -
> but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave
> arrive?
You have to think of sound waves as an expanding 'front" in
> That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you determine
> when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe -
> but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave
> arrive?
this case, so the sound 'arrives" when the front arrives at
your point of measurement. It may get louder or softer
through the cycle, but if there's another copy of it coming
from a different distance, you need to take the same point
on each wave to determine their phase relationship. They all
originate at the same point, so that's as good a point of
reference as any.
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 5, 2012, 12:54:55 AM4/5/12
to
news:UZydnfocC5Ss--HS...@giganews.com...
Bob, your discussion above shows that you are thinking in terms of frequency
response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings
anechoically.
Spatially speaking, such a system would be a disaster regardless of freq
response, because all of the sound would be forced thru those two points in
space. It would be dry and annoying and if off center all you would hear
would be the nearer speaker. If on center, all of the sound would be heard
to come from the limited portal defined by the separation between the
speakers. All of the recorded ambience would come from the same set of
limited angles and sound very unnatural.
Loudspeaker binaural might be interesting played that way, if you were right
on center, but might have a lot of In-Head Localization (IHL) similar to the
headphone effect.
Gary Eickmeier
response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings
anechoically.
Spatially speaking, such a system would be a disaster regardless of freq
response, because all of the sound would be forced thru those two points in
space. It would be dry and annoying and if off center all you would hear
would be the nearer speaker. If on center, all of the sound would be heard
to come from the limited portal defined by the separation between the
speakers. All of the recorded ambience would come from the same set of
limited angles and sound very unnatural.
Loudspeaker binaural might be interesting played that way, if you were right
on center, but might have a lot of In-Head Localization (IHL) similar to the
headphone effect.
Gary Eickmeier
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 12:56:01 AM4/5/12
to
Soundhaspriority writes:
> Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition
> that results from experience we've all had.
Actually I don't know if they'd sound good or not, I was just wondering.
> Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is intuition
> that results from experience we've all had.
All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think headphones
are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going into
each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right?
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 5, 2012, 1:11:23 AM4/5/12
to
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:jli5kk$fau$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 4/4/2012 7:43 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you
>> determine
>> when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe -
>> but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave
>> arrive?
>
> You have to think of sound waves as an expanding 'front" in this case, so
> the sound 'arrives" when the front arrives at your point of measurement.
> It may get louder or softer through the cycle, but if there's another copy
> of it coming from a different distance, you need to take the same point on
> each wave to determine their phase relationship. They all originate at the
> same point, so that's as good a point of reference as any.
No, you have to think of sound waves as a phenomenon that takes some time to
>
>> That time alignment BS has always fascinated me - like, how do you
>> determine
>> when a signal "arrives" at your position? Leading edge transients maybe -
>> but that would be high freqs only. So when does, say, a 50 Hz bass wave
>> arrive?
>
> You have to think of sound waves as an expanding 'front" in this case, so
> the sound 'arrives" when the front arrives at your point of measurement.
> It may get louder or softer through the cycle, but if there's another copy
> of it coming from a different distance, you need to take the same point on
> each wave to determine their phase relationship. They all originate at the
> same point, so that's as good a point of reference as any.
happen. A 50 Hz wave doesn't just "arrive" - it takes 1/50th of a second to
happen. Nor is it just one cycle. I think we all know that drivers would
have to be separated by several feet for anything to be audible at all, that
then it would be for reasons other than time alignment.
Gary Eickmeier
Soundhaspriority
Apr 5, 2012, 2:05:31 AM4/5/12
to
news:kA9fr.654$844...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
implied.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:UZydnfocC5Ss--HS...@giganews.com...
[snip]
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:UZydnfocC5Ss--HS...@giganews.com...
> Bob, your discussion above shows that you are thinking in terms of
> frequency response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings
> anechoically.
>
No, Gary, I was posing a question for discussion. No opinion is expressed or
> frequency response alone, and not the spatial result of playing recordings
> anechoically.
>
implied.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
Apr 5, 2012, 2:08:16 AM4/5/12
to
news:rc9qn79t552fn1igr...@4ax.com...
That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
cues provided by the external ear and skull. Sometimes the signal is
manipulated to restore the cues. Or, we get used to the headphone experience
and do without.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
cues provided by the external ear and skull. Sometimes the signal is
manipulated to restore the cues. Or, we get used to the headphone experience
and do without.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 5, 2012, 2:57:03 AM4/5/12
to
news:rc9qn79t552fn1igr...@4ax.com...
NO. That is what binaural is all about, not stereophonic. Someone stop me
from preaching.
Gary Eickmeier
>
from preaching.
Gary Eickmeier
>
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 5, 2012, 3:00:28 AM4/5/12
to
news:7MidnU5Z3e6xq-DS...@giganews.com...
Your question was based on a series of statements about the freq response
consequences of losing the boundaries of a normal room. You said nothing
about the spatial, which is why I responded.
Gary Eickmeier
consequences of losing the boundaries of a normal room. You said nothing
about the spatial, which is why I responded.
Gary Eickmeier
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 3:41:12 AM4/5/12
to
Soundhaspriority writes:
> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
All of the extra cues that are available when listening to sound live come
from moving the head. Wearing headphones is equivalent to listening to sound
with the head rigidly held in one position.
I have long thought that a headphone system with motion sensors using
real-time mixing from a multiple-track source (more than two tracks) would fix
this, but I don't know if anyone has actually built such a system. It's
certainly technically feasible. It could be done for sources like 5.1 sound.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 6:37:48 AM4/5/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rc9qn79t552fn1igr...@4ax.com...
> Soundhaspriority writes:
> All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think
> headphones are a better choice. Headphones give you more control
> over what is going into each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all
> about, right?
No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room
> All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think
> headphones are a better choice. Headphones give you more control
> over what is going into each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all
> about, right?
acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce
crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear on any controller
I'm aware of.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 6:40:18 AM4/5/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tviqn75c066u3o3d3...@4ax.com...
> Soundhaspriority writes:
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is
>> deprived of cues provided by the external ear and skull.
> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is
>> deprived of cues provided by the external ear and skull.
> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound
reproduction for a while.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 6:41:51 AM4/5/12
to
> NO. That is what binaural is all about, not stereophonic.
> Someone stop me from preaching.
Don't apologize for criticizing someone who is trolling this group (even if
> Someone stop me from preaching.
he doesn't think he is).
None
Apr 5, 2012, 6:51:01 AM4/5/12
to
"Mrs. Maniac" <mrsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tviqn75c066u3o3d3...@4ax.com...
news:tviqn75c066u3o3d3...@4ax.com...
> Soundhaspriority writes:
>
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>
> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
>
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>
> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
> done for sources like 5.1 sound.
More utter bullshit from a proudly ignorant troll.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 6:55:01 AM4/5/12
to
William Sommerwerck writes:
> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they
> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction unambiguously
unless you move your head. Period.
> You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound
> reproduction for a while.
or sound reproduction.
You can't triangulate a position with just two signals. It's as simple as
that. A stationary head provides only two signals. If you want more, you have
to move your head.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 6:56:07 AM4/5/12
to
William Sommerwerck writes:
> No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room
> acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce
> crosstalk and head-shadowing.
If the original sound is recorded with an artificial head, and then played
> No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate room
> acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you introduce
> crosstalk and head-shadowing.
back with headphones that introduce the same sound into the ear canals, the
playback should sound exactly like the original.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 7:00:54 AM4/5/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rguqn79smp9argaf5...@4ax.com...
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 7:04:09 AM4/5/12
to
Might I quote Pope? (Alexander, not The.)
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:02:52 AM4/5/12
to
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UZydnfocC5Ss--HS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n64mn79gdhfmqoqqi...@4ax.com...
>> Scott Dorsey writes:
>>
>>> Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea.
>>
>> What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof
>> and
>> no walls for tens of miles in every direction?
>
> Speakers for use in rooms are designed for a specific number of boundary
> surfaces. Examples:
>
> 1. Speaker hung on middle of wall = 1 boundary surface.
> 2. Speaker on floor at juncture of wall and floor = 2 boundary surfaces.
> 3. Speaker in corner at juncture of two walls and floor = 3 boundary
> surfaces.
> 4. Speaker in very small space, such as a sound booth with rigid walls =
> pressurization model of acoustic space.
The boundary effects are predictable and primarily affect low frequency
> news:n64mn79gdhfmqoqqi...@4ax.com...
>> Scott Dorsey writes:
>>
>>> Not necessarily, although getting a bigger room is seldom a bad idea.
>>
>> What happens if you set up your audio system on a salt flat, with no roof
>> and
>> no walls for tens of miles in every direction?
>
> Speakers for use in rooms are designed for a specific number of boundary
> surfaces. Examples:
>
> 1. Speaker hung on middle of wall = 1 boundary surface.
> 2. Speaker on floor at juncture of wall and floor = 2 boundary surfaces.
> 3. Speaker in corner at juncture of two walls and floor = 3 boundary
> surfaces.
> 4. Speaker in very small space, such as a sound booth with rigid walls =
> pressurization model of acoustic space.
response. Equalization can mitigate the primary negative effect (perceived
as thin sound).
> If the wall is rigid, acoustic reinforcement of the speaker output is
> proportional to the sum of the boundary surfaces. The speaker designer
> voices the speaker with the assumption of one of the above. As the
> frequency reproduced approaches zero, the acoustic model transitions from
> one that approximates free space, to another model dominated by standing
> waves, and finally, one characterized by pressurization. Headphones are
> designed for a pressurized space.
should be rigid with some diffusion. If it ends in corners it may be
necessary to put absorbtion in the corners.
> Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is
> intuition that results from experience we've all had. Sound outside sounds
> thin compared to sound inside, and this is the reason why.
> Speakers for outdoor sound reinforcement are designed with the assumption
> of no boundary surface reinforcement.
very profitable pastime during the summer in the US. We killed a few people
this way last summer, but it can be done safely and even somewhat
pleasurably for critical listeners. Most of the time the venue is either an
existing outdoor music venue with some kind of rigid, diffusing acoustic
shell, or a raised plaform with sonically transparent horizontal boundaries
and bass reinforced by massive (sub)woofers.
> This requires much higher acoustic power , which practically speaking,
> requires much higher acoustic efficiency, than speakers designed for use
> inside. This is typically met with horn radiators, which have problems
> with phase shift.
inehrent in waveguide-based speakers, it would be a very good day indeed. I
know that high end audiophiles are educated by the high end establishment to
distrust waveguides, but in fact modern waveguide-based speakers are
probably the most ideal speaker drivers around.
> So it is a real question whether available technology can provide sound as
> pleasing on a salt flat as in a well treated acoustic space.
different things: music production and music reproduction. The rules for
large space music reproduction are different from those for small spaces,
and being outdoors changes the rules again because it changes the scale of
the problem.
> So here's a question: Are there outdoor sound systems that have such high
> fidelity that the salt flat can be used to best the fidelity of the best
> interior systems and treated rooms? Assume full bandwidth is required.
as far as bass extension goes is just a matter of spending money on existing
technology.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:06:59 AM4/5/12
to
news:ULSdndkXxfBNq-DS...@giganews.com...
*how*.
>> Actually I don't know if they'd sound good or not, I was just wondering.
>> All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think
>> headphones
>> are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going
>> into
>> each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right?
Headphones can provide superior sonic accuracy in terms of reproduction of
the recording.
> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
> cues provided by the external ear and skull. Sometimes the signal is
> manipulated to restore the cues. Or, we get used to the headphone
> experience and do without.
The above ignores the fact that the cues in question should, in many
people's view, come from the recording.
The most precise means for providing these cues can be provided by binaural,
simulated head recording. Binaural recordings can sound compellingly real.
Trouble is, they sound strange to most people when played over speakers.
>
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rc9qn79t552fn1igr...@4ax.com...
>> Soundhaspriority writes:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is
>>> intuition that results from experience we've all had.
I've seen it done pretty confincingly. Please see my former posts for the
>
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rc9qn79t552fn1igr...@4ax.com...
>> Soundhaspriority writes:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic's worry that speakers on a salt flat won't sound good is
>>> intuition that results from experience we've all had.
*how*.
>> Actually I don't know if they'd sound good or not, I was just wondering.
>> All this stuff about speakers sounds extremely complicated. I think
>> headphones
>> are a better choice. Headphones give you more control over what is going
>> into
>> each ear, and that's what it is ultimately all about, right?
the recording.
> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
> cues provided by the external ear and skull. Sometimes the signal is
> manipulated to restore the cues. Or, we get used to the headphone
> experience and do without.
people's view, come from the recording.
The most precise means for providing these cues can be provided by binaural,
simulated head recording. Binaural recordings can sound compellingly real.
Trouble is, they sound strange to most people when played over speakers.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:18:40 AM4/5/12
to
news:dcuqn7pkddrtjo97o...@4ax.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
Most people can locate common sound sources in the horizontal plane at ear
height with resonable accuracy without moving their heads.
> William Sommerwerck writes:
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they
> receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction
> unambiguously
> unless you move your head. Period.
Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they
> receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction
> unambiguously
> unless you move your head. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
Most people can locate common sound sources in the horizontal plane at ear
height with resonable accuracy without moving their heads.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:19:40 AM4/5/12
to
news:mmbfr.68229$1S3...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
I'm the wrong guy to do that, Gary! ;-)
I already started on the same basic sermon in another subthread.
I already started on the same basic sermon in another subthread.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:21:09 AM4/5/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jljsjj$r9h$1...@dont-email.me...
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:22:46 AM4/5/12
to
news:rguqn79smp9argaf5...@4ax.com...
It does, but then you have a recording that doesn't sound so hot over
speakers.
The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
marketplace.
speakers.
The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
marketplace.
Mike Rivers
Apr 5, 2012, 8:25:41 AM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 1:11 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> No, you have to think of sound waves as a phenomenon that takes some time to
> happen. A 50 Hz wave doesn't just "arrive" - it takes 1/50th of a second to
> happen. Nor is it just one cycle. I think we all know that drivers would
> have to be separated by several feet for anything to be audible at all, that
> then it would be for reasons other than time alignment.
HITLER!!!!!!!
> No, you have to think of sound waves as a phenomenon that takes some time to
> happen. A 50 Hz wave doesn't just "arrive" - it takes 1/50th of a second to
> happen. Nor is it just one cycle. I think we all know that drivers would
> have to be separated by several feet for anything to be audible at all, that
> then it would be for reasons other than time alignment.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 8:29:38 AM4/5/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:17442626.3156.1333555048261.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbpp14...
close to half speed. I wonder how that works out for real world acoustics?
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 5, 2012, 8:36:04 AM4/5/12
to
news:rguqn79smp9argaf5...@4ax.com...
A brief read of the literature will show what Bill is saying - binaural is a
terrific idea, but it has its problems too. In-Head Localization is the
chief among them. Loudspeaker binaural solves the head rotation problem but
not the freedom of movement problem - you have to remain glued to the sweet
spot. I have been having a great conversation with the "master" of
loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, Ralph Glasgal at
http://www.ambiophonics.org/ . Take a gander over there if you want to
pursue this subject.
Stereophonic sound, encompassing the whole field of surround sound from
loudspeakers, is a much more controversial subject. It is a field-type
system in which both ears are free to hear both - or all - speakers and the
room they are established in, in an attempt to mimic the sound field
produced by the original that was recorded. How to position the speakers,
which radiation pattern and frequency response, how big a room and what room
treatment, how many surround speakers, and on and on are the subject of
great controversy and creativity in the industry and the marketing forces
that support it. Big subject, and in this area there are no "experts," just
a LOT of opinions.
Maybe start another thread if anyone wants to discuss this further.
Gary Eickmeier
terrific idea, but it has its problems too. In-Head Localization is the
chief among them. Loudspeaker binaural solves the head rotation problem but
not the freedom of movement problem - you have to remain glued to the sweet
spot. I have been having a great conversation with the "master" of
loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, Ralph Glasgal at
http://www.ambiophonics.org/ . Take a gander over there if you want to
pursue this subject.
Stereophonic sound, encompassing the whole field of surround sound from
loudspeakers, is a much more controversial subject. It is a field-type
system in which both ears are free to hear both - or all - speakers and the
room they are established in, in an attempt to mimic the sound field
produced by the original that was recorded. How to position the speakers,
which radiation pattern and frequency response, how big a room and what room
treatment, how many surround speakers, and on and on are the subject of
great controversy and creativity in the industry and the marketing forces
that support it. Big subject, and in this area there are no "experts," just
a LOT of opinions.
Maybe start another thread if anyone wants to discuss this further.
Gary Eickmeier
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 9:30:43 AM4/5/12
to
In article <jljsjj$r9h$1...@dont-email.me>,
That's merely because the original recordings are made to be reproduced on
speakers.
If they were recorded and mixed to be reproduced on headphones, they would be
quite different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
speakers.
If they were recorded and mixed to be reproduced on headphones, they would be
quite different.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 9:36:35 AM4/5/12
to
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Soundhaspriority writes:
>
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>
>There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
Actually, that's how most imaging actually occurs.
>Soundhaspriority writes:
>
>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>
>There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
I understand that you don't have any money to buy books, and you don't
have a library nearby, and your brain is damaged and the dog ate your
homework. However, I highly recommend that you scrape together whatever
coins you have left in your pocket and purchase a used copy of "Music,
Physics and Engineering" by Harry F. Olson which really will be a good
introduction to some of this fundamental stuff.
>All of the extra cues that are available when listening to sound live come
>from moving the head. Wearing headphones is equivalent to listening to sound
>with the head rigidly held in one position.
of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
localization. If you get a binaural recording made with a dummy head, the
effect is uncanny and you have accurate height cues and the ability to
localize sounds above, below, and behind you in 3-space. There is some
discussion of this in Olson's book.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 9:42:29 AM4/5/12
to
>> No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate
>> room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you
>> introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear
>> on any controller I'm aware of.
> That's merely because the original recordings are made to be reproduced
> on speakers.
You got it backwards. The processing is needed for conventional recordings.
>> room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you
>> introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear
>> on any controller I'm aware of.
> That's merely because the original recordings are made to be reproduced
> on speakers.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 9:41:43 AM4/5/12
to
propagate at the same rate. And no, ground reflections don't alter this.
2. Group delay really isn't all that audible anyway.
3. Group delay through a typical 2-way speaker system is very high anyway,
often more than 360 degrees at the crossover region, and this would swamp
any acoustical effects if they actually did exist.
4. In a transmission line you can alter speed of propagation of a wave, by
varying air pressure. This is a trick phasing plug designers have used.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 9:42:58 AM4/5/12
to
In article <jlk7dr$oce$1...@dont-email.me>,
Processing is needed either way, it's just different processing.
William Sommerwerck
Apr 5, 2012, 9:45:10 AM4/5/12
to
> I understand that you don't have any money to buy books, and
> you don't have a library nearby, and your brain is damaged and
> the dog ate your homework.
There's a classic Sam Gross "New Yorker" cartoon that shows a Venetian
> you don't have a library nearby, and your brain is damaged and
> the dog ate your homework.
classroom, ca. 1500. One of the students is explaining why he isn't
prepared: "The Doge ate my homework."
Soundhaspriority
Apr 5, 2012, 10:18:25 AM4/5/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jlk7en$qld$1...@panix2.panix.com...
[snip]
>
> 2. Group delay really isn't all that audible anyway.
With respect to the audibility of a large amount of group delay, it depends
> 2. Group delay really isn't all that audible anyway.
upon where it is in the response curve.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Apr 5, 2012, 11:55:06 AM4/5/12
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:29:38 AM UTC-4, Arny Krueger wrote:
> Actually, waves travel far slower than ideal C in transmission lines, often
> close to half speed. I wonder how that works out for real world acoustics?
This is outside of my knowledge. Any link to more info?
> Actually, waves travel far slower than ideal C in transmission lines, often
> close to half speed. I wonder how that works out for real world acoustics?
--Ethan
Soundhaspriority
Apr 5, 2012, 12:30:48 PM4/5/12
to
<eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote in message
news:4168331.819.1333641306462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14...
This is a combination of two pictures that fuzzily merge:
1. Free space propagation
2. Propagation at a boundary layer.
Far away from the wall (measured in wavelengths), propagation is free space.
Near the wall, there is some of the characteristic of a transmission line.
In acoustics, the flex in a wall that allows it to take energy from the air,
and release that energy back to the air is "reactive." The characteristic of
the wall that is absorbent is "resistive." The reactive part causes the wave
to slow down near the wall. The resistive part causes loss of amplitude.
As an aside, there is a type of transmission line that is "inside out": the
Goubau line. Instead of a hollow tube, it is a wire coated with dielectric.
RF can be efficiently transmitted along the wire. The acoustic analog might
be the two tin cans connected by string.
I'm not a specialist in this area, but from what I've seen of acoustic
design, the above pictures have not found practical use. Other views of the
data are used, as in the BBN parameters, to decide what to do with a wall.
As the size of the room in wavelengths shrinks, the free space model is not
useful for modeling troublesome wavelengths. A geometric model, having
nothing to do with waves, is used instead to analyze early reflections.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
news:4168331.819.1333641306462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14...
1. Free space propagation
2. Propagation at a boundary layer.
Far away from the wall (measured in wavelengths), propagation is free space.
Near the wall, there is some of the characteristic of a transmission line.
In acoustics, the flex in a wall that allows it to take energy from the air,
and release that energy back to the air is "reactive." The characteristic of
the wall that is absorbent is "resistive." The reactive part causes the wave
to slow down near the wall. The resistive part causes loss of amplitude.
As an aside, there is a type of transmission line that is "inside out": the
Goubau line. Instead of a hollow tube, it is a wire coated with dielectric.
RF can be efficiently transmitted along the wire. The acoustic analog might
be the two tin cans connected by string.
I'm not a specialist in this area, but from what I've seen of acoustic
design, the above pictures have not found practical use. Other views of the
data are used, as in the BBN parameters, to decide what to do with a wall.
As the size of the room in wavelengths shrinks, the free space model is not
useful for modeling troublesome wavelengths. A geometric model, having
nothing to do with waves, is used instead to analyze early reflections.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
None
Apr 5, 2012, 12:56:10 PM4/5/12
to
news:dcuqn7pkddrtjo97o...@4ax.com...
magically make it true.
>
>> You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound
>> reproduction for a while.
>
> In this case, it's simple math, and has no relation to sound, sound
> recording,
> or sound reproduction.
>
> You can't triangulate a position with just two signals. It's as simple as
> that.
But it's not "as simple as that." It's much more complex, and
it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact, triangulation
with just two signals is commonplace. There are so many errors
of ignorance, assumption, and arrogance in your simpleton
misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to start to educate
you, but it doesn't matter, you don't give a fuck that you're full of
shit, and you don't really want to understand. You just want to
troll. It may be that you just aren't smart enough to understand;
you may truly be as simple as you seem.
> A stationary head provides only two signals. If you want more, you have
> to move your head.
If you want more, you have to move your head out
of your rectum. But you like it there; you don't want
more.
> William Sommerwerck writes:
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they
> receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction
> unambiguously
> unless you move your head. Period.
Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
>
>> You couldn't be more wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I know exactly what I'm talking about. You have only two cochleas, they
> receive only two signals. They are unable to determine direction
> unambiguously
> unless you move your head. Period.
magically make it true.
>
>> You need to leave this group and study sound, sound recording, and sound
>> reproduction for a while.
>
> In this case, it's simple math, and has no relation to sound, sound
> recording,
> or sound reproduction.
>
> You can't triangulate a position with just two signals. It's as simple as
> that.
it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact, triangulation
with just two signals is commonplace. There are so many errors
of ignorance, assumption, and arrogance in your simpleton
misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to start to educate
you, but it doesn't matter, you don't give a fuck that you're full of
shit, and you don't really want to understand. You just want to
troll. It may be that you just aren't smart enough to understand;
you may truly be as simple as you seem.
> A stationary head provides only two signals. If you want more, you have
> to move your head.
of your rectum. But you like it there; you don't want
more.
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 1:13:55 PM4/5/12
to
the Belden catalogue, you can see a column for the percentage of C at which
signals travel down the cable. I only remember the fudge factors, 66% of C
for RG-58, 70% for RG-400. Solid antennas are 10% longer than free wavelength
in vacuum, hollow ones 8%.
Likewise with pressure waves in a fluid medium, the density of the medium
changes the speed of propagation. This is why when you set the notch filters
to kill the resonant modes in the cool morning at the music festival, you
find that in the hot afternoon the resonant modes are at different frequencies
than they started out.
Les Cargill
Apr 5, 2012, 1:31:14 PM4/5/12
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mxsmanic<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Soundhaspriority writes:
>>
>>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>>
>> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
>
> Actually, that's how most imaging actually occurs.
>
> I understand that you don't have any money to buy books, and you don't
> have a library nearby, and your brain is damaged and the dog ate your
> homework. However, I highly recommend that you scrape together whatever
> coins you have left in your pocket and purchase a used copy of "Music,
> Physics and Engineering" by Harry F. Olson which really will be a good
> introduction to some of this fundamental stuff.
>
+1 for Olson. Wish I'd had it decades ago.
> Mxsmanic<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Soundhaspriority writes:
>>
>>> That one is tough, too. The ear-brain localization system is deprived of
>>> cues provided by the external ear and skull.
>>
>> There aren't any cues provided by the external ear or skull.
>
> Actually, that's how most imaging actually occurs.
>
> I understand that you don't have any money to buy books, and you don't
> have a library nearby, and your brain is damaged and the dog ate your
> homework. However, I highly recommend that you scrape together whatever
> coins you have left in your pocket and purchase a used copy of "Music,
> Physics and Engineering" by Harry F. Olson which really will be a good
> introduction to some of this fundamental stuff.
>
>> All of the extra cues that are available when listening to sound live come
>>from moving the head. Wearing headphones is equivalent to listening to sound
>> with the head rigidly held in one position.
>
> No, not at all. Reflections off the pinnae mean that the frequency response
> of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
> localization. If you get a binaural recording made with a dummy head, the
> effect is uncanny and you have accurate height cues and the ability to
> localize sounds above, below, and behind you in 3-space. There is some
> discussion of this in Olson's book.
> --scott
>
>
--
eth...@ethanwiner.com
Apr 5, 2012, 2:08:42 PM4/5/12
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 1:13:55 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Likewise with pressure waves in a fluid medium, the density of the medium
> changes the speed of propagation.
Ah, got it, thanks. I didn't realize that happens in transmission line speakers. Though I did know that the air pressure can be so great inside the throat of a high-powered horn speaker that the air's non-linearity can become a factor.
> Likewise with pressure waves in a fluid medium, the density of the medium
> changes the speed of propagation.
--Ethan
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 3:27:32 PM4/5/12
to
news:jlkjsj$k1n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Also happens in rooms with poor heating. The room I work in the most had a
history of ineffective heating. The people in the pews had to wear their
coats and I had to retune all of my feedback notches.
Another effect of temperature effects is that acoustic measurements aren't
all that stable. Unseen, particularly in large rooms are drafts and currents
of air with different temperatures. If you set yourself up to make very
careful and stable measurements of acoustic parameters, particularly in
large rooms, you can seen your results wander around right before your eyes
(on the test equipment).
> <eth...@ethanwiner.com> wrote:
> This is why when you set the notch filters
> to kill the resonant modes in the cool morning at the music festival, you
> find that in the hot afternoon the resonant modes are at different
> frequencies
> than they started out.
Roger that!
> This is why when you set the notch filters
> to kill the resonant modes in the cool morning at the music festival, you
> find that in the hot afternoon the resonant modes are at different
> frequencies
> than they started out.
Also happens in rooms with poor heating. The room I work in the most had a
history of ineffective heating. The people in the pews had to wear their
coats and I had to retune all of my feedback notches.
Another effect of temperature effects is that acoustic measurements aren't
all that stable. Unseen, particularly in large rooms are drafts and currents
of air with different temperatures. If you set yourself up to make very
careful and stable measurements of acoustic parameters, particularly in
large rooms, you can seen your results wander around right before your eyes
(on the test equipment).
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 3:34:29 PM4/5/12
to
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 6:53:57 PM4/5/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
A time difference will place a source on a circle. Two ears will provide two
> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
circles. The circles will generally intersect at two points, so there isn't
any way to determine which of those two points is the actual location of the
sound source. Simple math.
In three dimensions, it's worse. The circles are spheres, and they intersect
to form a circle, and the sound source can be anywhere on the circle.
> Most people can locate common sound sources in the horizontal plane at ear
> height with resonable accuracy without moving their heads.
noise in an engine or car.
In fact, just today I was trying to figure out which of several fans in my PC
is making noise, but it's just too difficult. I need something that can
isolate the sounds directionally, so that I can point and listen.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 6:56:37 PM4/5/12
to
None writes:
> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
> magically make it true.
Calling it ill-informed crap doesn't magically make it false, either.
> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
> magically make it true.
> But it's not "as simple as that." It's much more complex, and
> it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact, triangulation
> with just two signals is commonplace.
on a circle. In practice the results are worse.
> There are so many errors of ignorance, assumption, and arrogance
> in your simpleton misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to
List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
sophomoric personal attack.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 6:58:57 PM4/5/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> No, not at all. Reflections off the pinnae mean that the frequency response
> of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
> localization.
That's an inference, not a deduction, and the brain can easily make mistakes
> No, not at all. Reflections off the pinnae mean that the frequency response
> of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
> localization.
with it. Because of that, it's possible to fool the brain with headphones.
> If you get a binaural recording made with a dummy head, the
> effect is uncanny and you have accurate height cues and the ability to
> localize sounds above, below, and behind you in 3-space.
_deduce_ its location, because cues that don't involve movement of the head
are unreliable and may be duplicated by multiple sound locations.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 7:02:15 PM4/5/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> The above ignores the fact that the cues in question should, in many
> people's view, come from the recording.
Cues that come from a two-track recording are ambiguous. The listener can
infer the location of sound sources from such a recording, if it is made from
real life, but the inferences can easily be wrong.
To eliminate the ambiguity, you need to sweep the radar through an arc (i.e.,
move the head) so that you can correlate changes in sound with changes in
azimuth.
It works for radar, GPS, etc., and the rules are the same for human ears,
because they are imposed by the laws of math and physics.
> The most precise means for providing these cues can be provided by binaural,
> simulated head recording. Binaural recordings can sound compellingly real.
> Trouble is, they sound strange to most people when played over speakers.
I've listened to a few--on headphones--and they sound very cool. The one thing
that is missing is a change in the sound with head movement--that would make
the reproduction indistinguishable from the real thing.
> The above ignores the fact that the cues in question should, in many
> people's view, come from the recording.
Cues that come from a two-track recording are ambiguous. The listener can
infer the location of sound sources from such a recording, if it is made from
real life, but the inferences can easily be wrong.
To eliminate the ambiguity, you need to sweep the radar through an arc (i.e.,
move the head) so that you can correlate changes in sound with changes in
azimuth.
It works for radar, GPS, etc., and the rules are the same for human ears,
because they are imposed by the laws of math and physics.
> The most precise means for providing these cues can be provided by binaural,
> simulated head recording. Binaural recordings can sound compellingly real.
> Trouble is, they sound strange to most people when played over speakers.
I've listened to a few--on headphones--and they sound very cool. The one thing
that is missing is a change in the sound with head movement--that would make
the reproduction indistinguishable from the real thing.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 7:03:05 PM4/5/12
to
William Sommerwerck writes:
> And how many binaural recordings are available at your local record store?
I have two or three CDs of such recordings somewhere here.
> And how many binaural recordings are available at your local record store?
I have two or three CDs of such recordings somewhere here.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 7:05:19 PM4/5/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> It does, but then you have a recording that doesn't sound so hot over
> speakers.
Perhaps, but the whole idea would be to listen to it with headphones.
Personally, I'm not sure why people spend so much time and effort on speakers
when working on improving headphones would make more sense, at least for
recordings that are supposed to sound realistic. Accommodating head movement
is entirely feasible technically today. In fact, you should be able to
dynamically remix 5.1 recordings in a way that would make them very realistic,
if they were recorded originally for that purpose.
> The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
> recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
> not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
> marketplace.
I imagine most people don't want maximum realism so much as pleasing sound.
And most sound recordings seem to be music, where reproducing the original
sound as it was heard in real life is not necessarily important.
> It does, but then you have a recording that doesn't sound so hot over
> speakers.
Perhaps, but the whole idea would be to listen to it with headphones.
Personally, I'm not sure why people spend so much time and effort on speakers
when working on improving headphones would make more sense, at least for
recordings that are supposed to sound realistic. Accommodating head movement
is entirely feasible technically today. In fact, you should be able to
dynamically remix 5.1 recordings in a way that would make them very realistic,
if they were recorded originally for that purpose.
> The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
> recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
> not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
> marketplace.
I imagine most people don't want maximum realism so much as pleasing sound.
And most sound recordings seem to be music, where reproducing the original
sound as it was heard in real life is not necessarily important.
Mxsmanic
Apr 5, 2012, 7:07:33 PM4/5/12
to
Gary Eickmeier writes:
> A brief read of the literature will show what Bill is saying - binaural is a
> terrific idea, but it has its problems too. In-Head Localization is the
> chief among them. Loudspeaker binaural solves the head rotation problem but
> not the freedom of movement problem - you have to remain glued to the sweet
> spot.
You could design headphones with motion sensors and use a multitrack recording
> A brief read of the literature will show what Bill is saying - binaural is a
> terrific idea, but it has its problems too. In-Head Localization is the
> chief among them. Loudspeaker binaural solves the head rotation problem but
> not the freedom of movement problem - you have to remain glued to the sweet
> spot.
to solve this, though. You need sensors for rotation and translation along
three axes, plus, say, six tracks recorded at equally spaced points on a
sphere. Then you remix the tracks dynamically as the listener moves his head.
Totally doable today, I'm sure.
> I have been having a great conversation with the "master" of
> loudspeaker binaural recording and reproduction, Ralph Glasgal at
> http://www.ambiophonics.org/ . Take a gander over there if you want to
> pursue this subject.
Tom McCreadie
Apr 5, 2012, 8:22:12 PM4/5/12
to
>A time difference will place a source on a circle.
between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
hyperbola.
Check your Wikipedia for the definition of a hyperbola as expressed in terms of
distance from foci: "A hyperbola may be defined equivalently as the locus of
points where the difference of the distances to the two foci is a constant equal
to 2a, the distance between its two vertices."
We could rephrase that as "a hyperbola is the curve representing all allowable
sound-source locations that would still result in the same constant time delay
(path length difference) being experienced between the ears (or capsules of an
AB mic array)"
Scott Dorsey
Apr 5, 2012, 9:09:20 PM4/5/12
to
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> No, not at all. Reflections off the pinnae mean that the frequency response
>> of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
>> localization.
>
>That's an inference, not a deduction, and the brain can easily make mistakes
>with it. Because of that, it's possible to fool the brain with headphones.
Umm.... _all_ imaging is by inference. Come to think of it, all hearing is
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> No, not at all. Reflections off the pinnae mean that the frequency response
>> of your head varies as you move off axis and your brain uses this for
>> localization.
>
>That's an inference, not a deduction, and the brain can easily make mistakes
>with it. Because of that, it's possible to fool the brain with headphones.
too.
But... you're not actually here to learn about audio, you're here to
deliberately start flame wars. Please go away.
Soundhaspriority
Apr 5, 2012, 9:32:32 PM4/5/12
to
news:ok8sn7d19lsiegvj4...@4ax.com...
> None writes:
>
[snip]
for you. There is a whole science of this. So, if I may offer the same
advice in a more polite fashion, please read some of the suggested material.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
> None writes:
>
[snip]
>
> List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
> sophomoric personal attack.
They aren't polite, but they are right, and not obligated to recapitulate
> List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
> sophomoric personal attack.
for you. There is a whole science of this. So, if I may offer the same
advice in a more polite fashion, please read some of the suggested material.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 11:03:05 PM4/5/12
to
news:fd8sn75nu65hs7j6s...@4ax.com...
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
>
> A time difference will place a source on a circle.
Nope, a hyperbola http://www.jneurosci.org/content/11/3/722.full.pdf
>
>> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
>
> A time difference will place a source on a circle.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 11:03:55 PM4/5/12
to
news:ok8sn7d19lsiegvj4...@4ax.com...
> None writes:
>
>> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
>> magically make it true.
>
> Calling it ill-informed crap doesn't magically make it false, either.
>
>> But it's not "as simple as that." It's much more complex, and
>> it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact,
>> triangulation
>> with just two signals is commonplace.
>
> With two signals in 3D space, the best you can do is locate the sound
> source
> on a circle. In practice the results are worse.
Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.
>
>> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
>> magically make it true.
>
> Calling it ill-informed crap doesn't magically make it false, either.
>
>> But it's not "as simple as that." It's much more complex, and
>> it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact,
>> triangulation
>> with just two signals is commonplace.
>
> With two signals in 3D space, the best you can do is locate the sound
> source
> on a circle. In practice the results are worse.
Arny Krueger
Apr 5, 2012, 11:04:51 PM4/5/12
to
news:iu8sn71l7f2qn1hjk...@4ax.com...
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> The above ignores the fact that the cues in question should, in many
>> people's view, come from the recording.
>
> Cues that come from a two-track recording are ambiguous.
They can be, but they need not. Example: Binaural recording.
>
>> The above ignores the fact that the cues in question should, in many
>> people's view, come from the recording.
>
> Cues that come from a two-track recording are ambiguous.
None
Apr 6, 2012, 12:18:34 AM4/6/12
to
"Mrs Maniac" <mxsm...@gmail.com>, which his head up his ass,
material to which you have been referred shows that you
have no interest in being instructed. You prefer to be an
ignorant asshole, and it really doesn't matter whether you
think such an accurate assessment is polite.
Pull your head out of your asshole and read some of the
works that have been named in this newsgroup. As long
as you refuse to do that, yet continue to post, you are
essentially bragging about being an ignorant fuckhead.
Politeness, or lack of politeness, doesn't change those simple
facts, nor does it magically eliminate all the well-known and
experimentally verified effects of the skull, pinnae, ear canals,
etc, and provide stimuli directly to the cochleae which somehow
transmit the information to the rectal lining of your brain. All
of which you could read about if you weren't so proud of being
an ill-informed asshole.
If you continue to make a spectacle of your ignorance, you
have no justification in whining when it's pointed out to you.
Read a book (several have been suggested), or better yet, just
fuck off out of here and troll somewhere else.
wrote in message news:ok8sn7d19lsiegvj4...@4ax.com...
>> There are so many errors of ignorance, assumption, and arrogance
>> in your simpleton misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to
>> start to educate you ...
>
> List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
> sophomoric personal attack.
Your pigheaded refusal to bother to read the instructional
>> in your simpleton misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to
>> start to educate you ...
>
> List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
> sophomoric personal attack.
material to which you have been referred shows that you
have no interest in being instructed. You prefer to be an
ignorant asshole, and it really doesn't matter whether you
think such an accurate assessment is polite.
Pull your head out of your asshole and read some of the
works that have been named in this newsgroup. As long
as you refuse to do that, yet continue to post, you are
essentially bragging about being an ignorant fuckhead.
Politeness, or lack of politeness, doesn't change those simple
facts, nor does it magically eliminate all the well-known and
experimentally verified effects of the skull, pinnae, ear canals,
etc, and provide stimuli directly to the cochleae which somehow
transmit the information to the rectal lining of your brain. All
of which you could read about if you weren't so proud of being
an ill-informed asshole.
If you continue to make a spectacle of your ignorance, you
have no justification in whining when it's pointed out to you.
Read a book (several have been suggested), or better yet, just
fuck off out of here and troll somewhere else.
John Williamson
Apr 6, 2012, 2:02:04 AM4/6/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
>
> A time difference will place a source on a circle. Two ears will provide two
> circles. The circles will generally intersect at two points, so there isn't
> any way to determine which of those two points is the actual location of the
> sound source. Simple math.
>
> In three dimensions, it's worse. The circles are spheres, and they intersect
> to form a circle, and the sound source can be anywhere on the circle.
>
Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
> Arny Krueger writes:
>
>> Intraural timing works at low frequencies.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference
>
> A time difference will place a source on a circle. Two ears will provide two
> circles. The circles will generally intersect at two points, so there isn't
> any way to determine which of those two points is the actual location of the
> sound source. Simple math.
>
> In three dimensions, it's worse. The circles are spheres, and they intersect
> to form a circle, and the sound source can be anywhere on the circle.
>
frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.
We've all had millions of years of evolution and most of us have had a
lifetime's experience of decoding these changes, so as a result, you can
locate any sound quite closely in the 360 degrees without moving our
heads, although some sounds with a long attack and in certain frequency
bands can be (very) hard to locate. Vertical location is more difficult,
but can still often be done, although it may need slight head movement.
>> Most people can locate common sound sources in the horizontal plane at ear
>> height with resonable accuracy without moving their heads.
>
> If that were true, it wouldn't be so hard to locate the source of a funny
> noise in an engine or car.
>
> In fact, just today I was trying to figure out which of several fans in my PC
> is making noise, but it's just too difficult. I need something that can
> isolate the sounds directionally, so that I can point and listen.
remove the reflecting surfaces and the transmission paths inside the
engine or PC case which are spreading the sound. This is why many motor
vehicle engineers have a stethoscope in their toolbox.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
John Williamson
Apr 6, 2012, 2:05:16 AM4/6/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> None writes:
>
>> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
>> magically make it true.
>
> Calling it ill-informed crap doesn't magically make it false, either.
>
NO, but when it *is* ill-informed crap...
> None writes:
>
>> Tagging "Period" on the end of ill-informed crap doesn't
>> magically make it true.
>
> Calling it ill-informed crap doesn't magically make it false, either.
>
>> But it's not "as simple as that." It's much more complex, and
>> it involves a lot more than just triangulation. And in fact, triangulation
>> with just two signals is commonplace.
>
> With two signals in 3D space, the best you can do is locate the sound source
> on a circle. In practice the results are worse.
>
your hearing checked. Problems locating sounds are often an early sign
of approaching deafness or damage to one or both cochleas. Or, more
likely, a build up of wax in one or both ears.
>> There are so many errors of ignorance, assumption, and arrogance
>> in your simpleton misunderstanding that it's hard to know where to
>> start to educate you ...
>
> List them. That would be a lot more persuasive and instructive than some
> sophomoric personal attack.
""
There you go...
PStamler
Apr 6, 2012, 2:59:58 AM4/6/12
to
Mxyzptlk, if you really want to learn something about this stuff
(which I kind of doubt), there are several places you can learn it for
free. You might start with Technical Books Online:
http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htm
In the audio section, check out books by Norman Crowhurst and G. A.
Briggs. When you're feeling ambitious, download the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook.
These books were written before stereo became common, so some of them
won't talk specifically about how people's perceptions of direction
work (which this thread has evolved into), but you could learn a whole
lot from the books on this site. There are some real classics here.
Peace,
Paul
(which I kind of doubt), there are several places you can learn it for
free. You might start with Technical Books Online:
http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htm
In the audio section, check out books by Norman Crowhurst and G. A.
Briggs. When you're feeling ambitious, download the Radiotron
Designer's Handbook.
These books were written before stereo became common, so some of them
won't talk specifically about how people's perceptions of direction
work (which this thread has evolved into), but you could learn a whole
lot from the books on this site. There are some real classics here.
Peace,
Paul
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:24:05 AM4/6/12
to
Tom McCreadie writes:
> Sorry, but a time difference - which is proportional to a distance difference
> between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
> hyperbola.
A hyperbola contains multiple points, too. So the source is still not
> Sorry, but a time difference - which is proportional to a distance difference
> between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
> hyperbola.
unambiguously located.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:24:52 AM4/6/12
to
I was thinking of absolute rather than relative measurements.
Nevertheless, a hyperbola is just as ambiguous as a circle. Either way, the
location of the source has not been located, just constrained.
Nevertheless, a hyperbola is just as ambiguous as a circle. Either way, the
location of the source has not been located, just constrained.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:28:43 AM4/6/12
to
John Williamson writes:
> Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
> frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
> direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
> differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.
But attempting to locate sound sources in this way involves inference, not
> Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
> frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
> direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
> differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.
deduction, so it does not reliably and unambiguously locate a sound source.
If this were not true, much of professional audio would have no reason to
exist. If human hearing really could locate sound sources reliably, then
speakers and headphones would sound terribly artificial.
> We've all had millions of years of evolution and most of us have had a
> lifetime's experience of decoding these changes, so as a result, you can
> locate any sound quite closely in the 360 degrees without moving our
> heads, although some sounds with a long attack and in certain frequency
> bands can be (very) hard to locate. Vertical location is more difficult,
> but can still often be done, although it may need slight head movement.
unambiguous localization of sound sources. The more unfamiliar the sound or
situation, the more unreliable inferences will be.
> What you need, both in the case of the engine and the computer, is to
> remove the reflecting surfaces and the transmission paths inside the
> engine or PC case which are spreading the sound.
> This is why many motor vehicle engineers have a stethoscope in their
> toolbox.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:29:43 AM4/6/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, a hyperbola contains an infinite number of
> Wrong - its a hyperbola. Reference cited in another post.
points, just like a circle. So you have no way of unambiguously locating the
sound source.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:31:17 AM4/6/12
to
None writes:
> Politeness, or lack of politeness, doesn't change those simple
> facts, nor does it magically eliminate all the well-known and
> experimentally verified effects of the skull, pinnae, ear canals,
> etc. ...
> Politeness, or lack of politeness, doesn't change those simple
> facts, nor does it magically eliminate all the well-known and
> experimentally verified effects of the skull, pinnae, ear canals,
Agreed.
> If you continue to make a spectacle of your ignorance, you
> have no justification in whining when it's pointed out to you.
principles that are very easy to understand.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:32:20 AM4/6/12
to
John Williamson writes:
> If you have a problem doing this with most sounds, then maybe you need
> your hearing checked. Problems locating sounds are often an early sign
> of approaching deafness or damage to one or both cochleas. Or, more
> likely, a build up of wax in one or both ears.
Try a double-blind test and see how well you can locate sound sources, even
> If you have a problem doing this with most sounds, then maybe you need
> your hearing checked. Problems locating sounds are often an early sign
> of approaching deafness or damage to one or both cochleas. Or, more
> likely, a build up of wax in one or both ears.
with perfect hearing. Remember, no head movement allowed.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:35:36 AM4/6/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> Umm.... _all_ imaging is by inference. Come to think of it, all hearing is
> too.
You can make certain deductions accurately from the information available.
> Umm.... _all_ imaging is by inference. Come to think of it, all hearing is
> too.
Moving the head provides additional information that can make more extensive
deductions possible, which in turn makes it much easier to accurately
determine the location of sound sources. Without head movement, some
information is missing, and no unambiguous determination can be made.
Professional audio depends on this, so I'm surprised that people argue about
it.
> But... you're not actually here to learn about audio, you're here to
> deliberately start flame wars.
persist in denying the correct position. I don't care how much experience they
have, what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.
Mxsmanic
Apr 6, 2012, 4:36:43 AM4/6/12
to
Arny Krueger writes:
> They can be, but they need not. Example: Binaural recording.
That's still ambiguous if the head doesn't move during recording. There can
> They can be, but they need not. Example: Binaural recording.
still be ambiguities with a moving head, but they are greatly diminished.
People instinctively turn their heads to locate sounds. Why would they do
that, if movement of the head were not necessary?
Luxey
Apr 6, 2012, 5:17:17 AM4/6/12
to
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:22:46 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:
> The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
> recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
> not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
> marketplace.
oh well,
> The Holy Grail of recording might be finding a way to make both kinds of
> recordings at the same time which seems possible, but apparently there is
> not enough market for binaural recordings to put them into the mainstream
> marketplace.
1. why would there be target market at all? Just record it that way and continue sell as "ordinary" recording.
2. Don't use use expression binaural, but 3D instead, and sell everything that comes along. Analogus to 3D TV and crap. Count on lack of consumer's inteligency and hype words.
3. Would binaural cues survive mp3 encoding? May be cure for the industry - "Download mp3 and loose 3D!".
Luxey
Apr 6, 2012, 5:23:06 AM4/6/12
to
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 14:02:52 UTC+2, Arny Krueger wrote:
>..............
Anything from own experience?
>..............
Anything from own experience?
John Williamson
Apr 6, 2012, 7:08:02 AM4/6/12
to
Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Williamson writes:
>
>> Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
>> frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
>> direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
>> differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.
>
> But attempting to locate sound sources in this way involves inference, not
> deduction, so it does not reliably and unambiguously locate a sound source.
>
In my case, the processing is done automatically by my ears and brain
> John Williamson writes:
>
>> Don't forget to allow for the fact that due to the shape of the ear, the
>> frequency response of each ear differs as the sound source changes
>> direction, which means that the two points of intersection can be
>> differentiated by the differing frequency content of the sound at each ear.
>
> But attempting to locate sound sources in this way involves inference, not
> deduction, so it does not reliably and unambiguously locate a sound source.
>
before I become conciously aware of the sound.
> If this were not true, much of professional audio would have no reason to
> exist. If human hearing really could locate sound sources reliably, then
> speakers and headphones would sound terribly artificial.
>
back, you would know this.
>> We've all had millions of years of evolution and most of us have had a
>> lifetime's experience of decoding these changes, so as a result, you can
>> locate any sound quite closely in the 360 degrees without moving our
>> heads, although some sounds with a long attack and in certain frequency
>> bands can be (very) hard to locate. Vertical location is more difficult,
>> but can still often be done, although it may need slight head movement.
>
> Head movement changes the game entirely. But without it, there can be no
> unambiguous localization of sound sources. The more unfamiliar the sound or
> situation, the more unreliable inferences will be.
>
position. Even breathing will move the head enough in a lot of cases.
> Not practical. So I need a tool that can isolate the sounds.
>
>> This is why many motor vehicle engineers have a stethoscope in their
>> toolbox.
>
> Yes, or something similar. A plastic tube might even be sufficient.
similar job.
Gary Eickmeier
Apr 6, 2012, 8:00:35 AM4/6/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jlk7h2$ovl$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <jlk7dr$oce$1...@dont-email.me>,
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> No, what it's all about is accurate reproduction. Headphones eliminate
>>>> room acoustics, but they produce an "in the head" effect, unless you
>>>> introduce crosstalk and head-shadowing. Which, oddly, do not appear
>>>> on any controller I'm aware of.
>>
>>> That's merely because the original recordings are made to be reproduced
>>> on speakers.
>>
>>You got it backwards. The processing is needed for conventional
>>recordings.
>
> Processing is needed either way, it's just different processing.
> --scott
I'm not sure what processing you're talking about, but the basic idea goes
something like this:
Stereophonic (loudspeaker based auditory perspective) recordings are made to
be reproduced on speakers in another acoustic space. The microphones can be
any number, for various reasons and techniques and purposes, and are placed
relatively close to the instruments because they will be played back on
speakers that are placed a distance from you in the playback space. Note
carefully all and sundry that this is NOT a "two speakers/two ears/ two
microphones" system, nor are any micrphones placed at an ideal listener
position, such as back in the audience. On playback, the various channels go
to speakers placed all around you, in an attempt to physically place those
sounds where they belong in your space. Your ears are free to hear all
speakers and the room they are in, for greatest realism, and for multiple
listeners.
Binaural recordings are more of a "you are there" system, wherein the
signals that impinge on the dummy head (mxmaniac) are reproduced on
headphones so that those signals will be fed directly to the two ears and
eliminate all playback room acoustic interference. The dummy head is placed
at a typical listener position so that it receives the complete sound
picture of the original PLUS the original room acoustics. Great idea, but
has some problems, as noted above.
A common sense way of saying all this is that stereo (surround) reproduced
the object itself - the sound field produced by the instruments and some of
the original acoustics, and binaural reproduces ear signals. The two systems
are mutually exclusive, but are continually confused with each other due to
the fact that we have done stereo with two channels for so long now.
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
Apr 6, 2012, 8:02:22 AM4/6/12
to
news:00atn7533cfdnolui...@4ax.com...
> Tom McCreadie writes:
>> Sorry, but a time difference - which is proportional to a distance
>> difference
>> between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
>> hyperbola.
> A hyperbola contains multiple points, too.
So does a straight line.
> So the source is still not unambiguously located.
The possibility of unambiguous location is vastly improved by the graph
*not* being circles.
You're running away from the serious error that you made. You said that
unambiguous location was inherently impossible. Tam true.
> Tom McCreadie writes:
>> Sorry, but a time difference - which is proportional to a distance
>> difference
>> between the sound source and the two ears - will place the source on a
>> hyperbola.
> A hyperbola contains multiple points, too.
> So the source is still not unambiguously located.
*not* being circles.
You're running away from the serious error that you made. You said that
unambiguous location was inherently impossible. Tam true.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages